When the Diocese of Fort Worth voted Nov. 15 to become the fourth American diocese to leave The Episcopal Church, the leadership of the Common Cause Partnership (CCP) scheduled a constitutional convention in the Chicago area Dec. 3 to form a new North American Anglican province. The event will be followed by “a province-by-province visitation and appeal for recognition of the separate ecclesiastical structure in North America.”
Significant details about the plan were revealed in a short AnglicanTV internet video clip containing remarks delivered by Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh and Bishop Bill Murdoch, a missionary bishop to the U.S. consecrated by the Anglican Church of Kenya.
Read the whole thing and please take the time to view the video interview here.
I am glad to see that the common Cause partners are moving ahead so quickly after the forth diocese removed itself from TEC. A new province should lead to a cessation of cross boarder interventions.
It will also be wonderful to see the diaspara of anglicans come together under an unified and official banner.
http://www.pwcweb.com/ecw
What a WONDERFUL gift for Advent! “A voice cries out: ‘In the wilderness prepare the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.”
I suspect all dioceses that plan to leave have done so, if not all parishes. Now, all will make their way through the courts with reference to property disputes. Most likely, TEC dioceses will win most of the property cases.
Hopefully, there will not be as much animosity and continued division/splitting as has happen around Wheaton, IL, but only time will tell. Once division has occurred in the first place, it is hard to stop it thereafter. Once the common enemy is gone, what will the different groups with very different theologies on many important issues finally do?
Then, if we abide as people under law and not dive headlong into chaos, the Anglican Consultative Council will need to vote whether to accept this new entity as an official province of the Anglican Communion or not. Likewise, the ABC will need to decide. Since he did not invite the bishops of the break-away groups to Lambeth, this may give an indication as to whether he will recognize the authority of the breakaway/newly consecrated extra-provincial bishops or the new entity or not. If he doesn’t, and if the ACC doesn’t, then no matter how much this new entity and its members want to claim that it is part of the Anglican Communion, it will not be. The new entity may claim to be part of the “True” Anglican Communion, but other Continuing Churches already do that.
A new denomination in North America will be born with strong ecumenical relationships with other official Provinces of the Anglican Communion, but the question will most certainly remain open as to whether this new North American entity will be honestly a part of the Anglican Communion or not. As things stand right now, I will guess they will not be.
Of course, those current Anglican Provinces that are determined to over-ride the ABC in order to preserve their vision of true Anglicanism in the world may well form a new communion/federation/Church, they may well abide by an Anglican heritage as do the Continuing Churches, but they will most likely not be a part of the Anglican Communion – in communion with the See of Canterbury.
4, I don’t really see this as a problem. Quite frankly at this point, given its inaction, I don’t think they value they AC and Canterbury very highly. I don’t think they will loose any sleep over not being a member. I know that I wouldn’t.
I, for one, actually look somewhat sadly on the “cessation of cross border interventions.” I hope that bonds and friendships that have been made will continue to strengthen and grow.
Will the current ABC recognize it? That would require him making a decision. He’s not done it before, so I am not holding my breath. If the final Covenant isn’t edentulous and the TEO balks and the new province signs it…? If the new province pays off some or all of the Lambeth debt…?
For me personally, I don’t really care whether or not Rowan “homosexual relationships can be equivalent to Christian marriage” Williams approves the new province.
Is it coincidence that the 4 Diocese which have left this past year are more or less geographically compatible? I mean could they become “seed” diocese representing the points of the compass for now? San Juaquin in the west extending eastward to Fort Worth in the south reaching up to Quincy in the north and on to Pittsburgh covering the east? Four former TEC Diocese becoming 4 new Archdiocese of a new province? Is this viable?
Actually there could be other contiguous diocese involved if one includes the Reformed Episcopal and APA. My guess is the diocesan boundaries are a thing of the past and we will follow the model adopted by the AMiA (self selection of Bishops) rather than CANA (regional clusters)
http://www.pwcweb.com/ecw
Glendermott,
Regarding boundaries – I think that you are right about the direction of things. But I hope it is temporary. I think that the AMiA model will be necessary for a season — but not indefinitely. I think so for four specific reasons (although more could be added).
(1) It is not the way the Global South provinces, or any of the provinces of the Anglican Communion for that matter, operate. Do parishes in the Global South provinces get to chose their bishops inside their provinces? or do they make recourse to the bishop closest to them? Why would our allies in this struggle for mutual recognition allow the odd arrangement which we have now and will have for at least a season (for necessity) to persist indefinitely? (please know that I totally believe we need a new province; I’m not trotting out a TEC argument about listening to your bishop even if he is a heretic)
2) Is it a good thing for one’s shepherd (bishop) to be located across the continent when another bishop is close by? This is simply pragmaticism. Effective ministry involves, let’s be honest, a measure of proximity. Likewise, mission work requires folks on the ground who actually know the area, who know the area’s dynamics, and who know how best to proclaim the gospel message.
3) Picking a bishop according to style or preference, not geography, challenges the historic nature of the episcopate (the word, as I’m sure we all know, means “overseer”). Now obviously there are lots of instances in history (pre and post reformation) of bishops overseeing places beyond their diocesan boundaries – but those are “peculiars.” Those were allowances under extraordinary circumstances, but never the norm.
4) Now the last one I’m going to have to beg your patience and remind you that I do believe we need a new province. Please give me your patience here. My fourth reason is that if we don’t jive with our local bishop, we need to work things out, not find a flying bishop from across the continent. Now, I know that sounds a lot like the old TEC argument. But I assure you, that’s not what I’m arguing. There is a difference between disagreements (even nasty disagreements) between orthodox Christians (on the one hand) and (on the other hand) disagreemenets between orthodox parishes and heretical bishops. So, let me give an example here. Let’s say you’ve got a parish in Philidelphia (I am making this up, not refering to a real one). They are under a bishop in Texas. In the new province, they really ought to come under Bishop Duncan in Pittsburgh. They may not perfectly “fit” Bishop Duncan, but those are differences that both Bp Duncan and the parish need to see beyond. It is something totally different to say that that parish in Philidelphia needs to come under their old heretical bishop simply because the old heretical bishop is close by. Does that make sense? There is a difference between the pragmatic, missional, and catholic necessity of coming under the oversight of a near-by orthodox bishop and submitting to a heretic bishop just because he is close.
Any way, there is much to be said on this topic, and I believe we will continue with the non-geographical system for a season at least. I simply hope and pray we see the problems with getting too comfortable with this adhoc patchwork of episcopal oversight.
[i]3) Picking a bishop according to style or preference, not geography, challenges the historic nature of the episcopate [/i]
The problem is neither style nor preference, but theology. What the reasserting separated dioceses are saying is that they want a Bishop who upholds the teachings of Christ and the Church, not one who goes after every new wind of (false) teaching that tickles the ear.
Working with TEc makes it very difficult to accept as bishop one who believes some of the following:
1) Jesus is merely one path to the divine
2) The Church wrote the Bible, the church can re-write it
3) admires the heresies of people like John Spong and invites him to lead teachings in their diocese
4) Believes all people can come to communion, whether Christian or not
5) forces a parish to accept things contrary to their deep-seated beliefs, such as Women’s Ordination or blessings of same-sex unions
6) tells a vestry who then can accept as rector in their parish, or threaten to dissolve the vestry and appoint a new one
7) participates in legal actions against a parish when they disagree with the National Church’s policies and theological direction.
These are what constitute the problem, not ‘style and preference’. And history also shows that ‘border crossings’ for orthodox believing congregations were accepted when a local bishop accepted and taught heresy.
Peace
Jim Elliott <>< Florida
I don’t know, this all this seems so short-sighted. It just does. I just finished reading a long expose on Wall Street investment firms and the incredible short-sightedness of their leaders – overwhelmed by greed and power. Growing up and being in American-Evangelicalism before becoming an Episcopalian, I also know of the tendency to gravitate to trendiness – always wanting the next new thing and thinking it is the way God will “bring in the Kingdom.” Not much of a long-term vision or understanding of Church history and Tradition.
All this realignment stuff seems so very American-Evangelical, and not Anglican (whether Anglican-Evangelical or Catholic). To point to one person, a single wo/man, a one-time, heretical bishop and say that it is better to disobey vows made to God and destroy the parish or diocese or ancient Catholic structures rather than give allegiance to the office the women or men inhabit for not much longer than a few years is extremely short-sighted. It seems almost like Wall Street, except the greed and wanting of power are of a different kind – Purity and Authority, perhaps.
Take a look at the generation coming up. I see them and listen to them. They don’t want what the Baby-Boomer revisionists want. When they get into positions of authority and power the Church will be renewed and its Tradition reclaimed. So many of the generational re-asserter leaders in power, it seems, act just like their liberal-baby-boomer compatriots, except that they focus on a different point or employ a different tactic. They (both liberal and conservative) would rather tear down and reinvent (the “quick” method) than have patience, trust God, and look a bit into the future and realize that change is always coming. God sees to that.
Recognition of the new province (is “The Anglican Church in North America” the name they’re planning, or just how they’re talking about it?) by the GAFCON Primates is presumably a given. Recognition by the ABC or the ACC seems improbable. Recognition by the Primates’ Meeting could happen but, I think, is still unlikely.
This does make some difference, in that the “Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans” will no longer be a communion within the Anglican Communion, but a communion that intersects with the AC. Members of provinces that are in the overlapping parts — i.e., the current GAFCON/FCA provinces — are going to be in the somewhat awkward position of having two sets of international meetings to go to, rather than just one: FCA (current GAFCON provinces + new NA province) and AC (all AC provinces, new NA province not invited). How long before they decide, for reasons of time, money, and attention, that they can only attend one set of meetings?
Our new province is in the process of being created right now, and there is nothing that ++Rowan Williams or The Episcopal Church can do to prevent it. We will be recognized by the primates of the Global South and others, and most likely not by those from the Western Anglican churches. ++Rowan Williams’ not recognizing our existence as an Anglican province will only be symbolic, and I am quite sure that we couldn’t care less what he thinks.
I see Anglican Communion membership as a matter of prestige; one of who gets to hobnob with the Archbishop of Canterbury and who doesn’t. It used to be a “status thing,” but somehow it just doesn’t seem all that important to so many of us any more. The important thing….the ONLY important thing….is that we will constitute a Church whose sole purpose in being is to preach and teach the Word of God, and to bring all men to Him.
Can anyone point me to the official process for province recognition within the Anglican Communion?
#13:
The Anglican Consultative Council is, so far as I know, the only one of the Instruments of Communion with a written constitution. It says:
(Ref. here.) Obviously, if two-thirds of the Primates assent to changing the “schedule of membership” of the ACC, then that’s also a majority of the Primates’ Meeting and they can be assumed to recognize the new province as well. The Archbishop of Canterbury recognizes whomever he pleases, but +++Rowan would most likely follow the ACC and the Primates if they chose to recognize a new province. Lambeth has no official power over this (or anything else, really) but would be unlikely to dissent from the other three Instruments.
So the long and the short of it is, if you can muster two-thirds of the current Primates then you’re pretty much in. If not, then not.
#12 – I agree that many in the conservative/traditionalist crowd waiting for a new province will not care whether Rowan or any of the official organs of the Anglican Communion recognize them or not. That is why I suggested earlier that this group, however large they may be, is acting more as American-Protestant/Evangelicals rather than Anglican-Evangelicals.
Traditional Anglicanism has a Catholic ecclesiology, which most everyone here knows. Why then are we acting like a Church that doesn’t? The current American-Anglican/Episcopal leadership, both liberal reappraiser and conservative reasserter (or whatever terminology best fits), are both acting contrary to Anglican Tradition and ecclesiology. Just the reality of it all.
What we will end up with is a new denomination with an Anglican heritage and a smaller Anglican Communion. In a generation, The Episcopal Church will be quite different, and in my opinion, much more traditional (but not the same as Baby-Boomer traditionalists) and still part of the Anglican Communion. At least that will be the case if I can have any part to play.
History shows us that the new North American Anglican denomination will probably go the way of the Reformed Episcopal Church and some of the other Continuing Anglican jurisdictions, despite my hope that they do very good work for the glory of God.
Bob G+, fine. You wait for the next 1200 years and then decide. I have done my waiting for the last 15 year and I am still waiting for the AC and the ABC to do, officlly, ONE DAMN THING!.
Personal decisions are made on the best information available at the time. And I don’t care what the AC is going to do 30 years from now.
And Bob G +, if you really feel this way, then I suggest you have no choice but to return to Rome or to the Orthodocx Church.
“Traditional Anglicanism has a Catholic ecclesiology, which most everyone here knows.”
Right. And having a woman PeeBee flies in the face of that ecclesiology. Relief for the traditional Anglo-catholics simply could not be put off any further. This is the opposite of acting hastily. This was the last time, they could make the vote. GC09 will close the door and would have resulted in the death of traditional Anglo-catholic ecclesiology.
Thanks Ross #14. With 38 primates that means we would need recognition from about 26. I count about 12 that would be big NO’s. Official recognition may be a long time coming.
The essential problem in the Anglican Communion is that many dioceses and primates effectively represent [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotten_borough]rotten boroughs[/url].
Should Rowan Williams elect not to recognise a new North American province, said province will nevertheless be in communion with at least 40 million Anglicans. When we remember that only perhaps 1 million of Britain’s putative 27 million Anglicans is actually active in the church, then the commonly profferred “77 million” Anglicans becomes rather less than 55 million, of which 40 million is a huge percentage.
The profound risk for ABC is that he will associate himself with a bunch of over-fed, over-educated, demographically moribund white people in a flaccid and confused western world. Can you say “lost its salt”?
Library Jim,
We are on the same side…. I am common cause too…
Did you read my post? WE CANNOT LISTEN TO HERETIC BISHOPS.
I said 3 times in that post that I was NOT making an argument that we need to listen to our local TEC bishop.
I was arguing that in the NEW PROVINCE, once it is established, we should work toward having geographical bishops.
When I wrote “style and preference” I was specifically refering to the phenomenon of a parish in one part of the country going past a non-TEC bishop next door to get oversight from another non-TEC bishop clear across the county —- simply because the one next door is evangelical and the parish is Anglo-Catholic.
That is what I meant by style and preference. Orthodoxy is a non-negotiable.
This is happening all the time.
If you are in TEXAS for instance, come under Bishop Iker.
Do not go to VIRGINIA for a non-TEC common cause bishop when you’ve got one non-TEC common cause bishop next door.
Do you see what I’m saying….. we’re on the same side……
[i] If you can muster two-thirds of the current Primates [to recognize a new province,] then you’re pretty much in. [/i] —Ross [#14]
Ross: Sounds right as long as you can get on the agenda of the primates’ meeting and the Anglican Consultative Council. But does Canterbury formally or informally control the agenda?
Bob G [#15]: What do you think of the Anglican Communion Institute’s paper on ecclesiology? It outlined a conciliar model that (to me at least) seemed eminently catholic.
But does Canterbury formally or informally control the agenda?
Rowan Williams tried (ridiculously) to allot only four hours for the “American question” at DeS. That was swept aside and the entire conference was spent on developing the DeS communique (which Rowan then subverted).
Bob G+,
You are correct in thinking that this is new ground for the Communion. I hope, as many here do, that the Primates will give their assent to the new Province, and my reasons for hoping that they will do so are eminently Catholic. TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada have departed from the faith once and for all handed down to the saints. There has been no discipline and no succor granted to those who have suffered under the jackboots of the liberals (I am writing from the Diocese of New Westminster to give you context).
The creation of the new Province is not intended to be a departure from the Anglican Communion– it is a departure from national structures that have become obstacles to the preaching of the gospel and to the transmission of historical Anglican faith and praxis.
The idea of overlapping provinces is a familiar one for Eastern Orthodox believers in North America. In any one city you may find overlapping Dioceses of the OCA, the Antiochian Orthodox Church, the Serbian Orthodox Church and others– each one ministering to their own constituents. All (or most) would recognize each other as being Orthodox, but their structures are distinct. I think that’s what we will be looking at here. Not so ahistorical as it might seem.
Just a thought.
A short addendum: I (and many others, I am sure) hope you are right and that the national bodies will move towards a more orthodox position as time passes; then two Provinces might become one again. The problem is, things rarely work out the way you expect. You’ve appealed to history with reference to some of the smaller groups that have split off over the past few decades (a parallel that I am not convinced of); I would appeal to trajectory of the State Churches in Germany, Denmark and Sweden. If history is our guide there, it suggests that the future of TEC and Canada is not bright at all. My prayer is that God will spare them that.
RE: “In a generation, The Episcopal Church will be quite different . . . . ”
Yes — about half of its current fast-shrinking ASA of 750,000.
Irenaeus (#23) – I haven’t read it, yet, but I will.
farstrider (#25 & #26) – Here is what I’m coming to think, and I’m just thinking out loud here: The players in this war of theology and ecclesiology are playing the game in the same way because they come from and are acting out of the same generationally specific American-cultural. They were all formed within the same culture, and act within the same “rules,” even if approaching the troubling issues from different angles. Whether liberal or conservative, reasserter or reappraiser (if those words are still used), those who are intent on imposing their perspective (e.g. Universalism, Calvinism, Puritanism, Evangelicalism, Catholicism, whatever other “ism” might be applied here) on everyone else to one degree or another are coming from the same place, but from opposite ends of the divide. For common folk living life, Fascism and Communism are not all that much different on the ground, but adherents to and within those two political systems are mortal enemies.
So, you wrote: “departed from the faith once and for all handed down to the saints. There has been no discipline and no succor granted to those who have suffered under the jackboots of the liberals (I am writing from the Diocese of New Westminster to give you context).” The conservatives will engage in just as determined and jackbooted ways as you accuse the liberals of acting, except they will use a different set of excuses or rationals for their jackbooted actions. The liberals don’t see themselves as acting in these kinds of tyrannical ways, and neither will the conservatives.
The whole way our troubles are being and have been approached and addressed is the problem. It is a core problem, and if not addressed there will never be resolution. God will not be glorified and the cause of Christ in North American will be further harmed.
I will agree that many liberals have been oppressive, but there are plenty of conservatives that are oppressive, too. For all of them, their means of achieving their ends are a big part of the problem, whether liberal or conservative. This core problem if not identified and addressed will bleed into the new Common Cause province, too. Once the common enemy of TEC is gone, the very real and definite differences within the different groups will bring up even more division if dealt with by the same ways and means as we have over this past several years.. This is what history shows us, particularly in the U.S.
So, why not spend more time focusing on the core problem – the deficient and unchristian means and ways we try to achieve our end goals (which for both sides is the Glory of God and the reconciliation of humanity to God) – rather than tearing down and attempting to rebuild in our own image? From what I know of Anglicanism, our ability to do this kind of wrestling and dealing with one another and vast difference has been one of our unique contributions to Christianity. It is dying, and it is the fault of all of us.
Those with vested interests in our troubles, well, we have all failed, because we have been playing the game in ways dictated by our culture. We act and fight like Americans and not people that claim to be part of the Kingdom of God.
[blockquote] So, why not spend more time focusing on the core problem – the deficient and unchristian means and ways we try to achieve our end goals (which for both sides is the Glory of God and the reconciliation of humanity to God) – rather than tearing down and attempting to rebuild in our own image? From what I know of Anglicanism, our ability to do this kind of wrestling and dealing with one another and vast difference has been one of our unique contributions to Christianity. It is dying, and it is the fault of all of us.[/blockquote]
The election of Ms Schori has killed the dialog process. That is reality. The big tent is dead. Orthodox have been shown the door (or at best the servant’s quarters out back).
Bob G+,
It is a bit too easy, though, isn’t it to make this out to be nothing more than a problem of modernity or American “je ne c’est quoi”?
I can flip it around just as easily and say it is all a problem of postmodernity (more convincingly, in fact)– a postmodernity that is not only dividing Western Churches, but is alienating non-Western Churches to whom your line of reasoning would be utterly foreign.
Your posts, up until this last one, have appealed to Catholicity and, even, the Evangelical drive. The quotation which you reacted to, (the faith once and for all handed down) is found in Jude 3. The attitude of vigilance described in that verse has been the hallmark of Christian orthodoxy for the last two thousand years; it is what has preserved the faith to this day, even though outwardly the body may be divided. When you hear us (Canadians, Singaporeans, Africans, et al) contrast the theology of “reaapraisers” with the historic Christian faith it is not because we are modernists or Americans; it is because the attitude of “we’re all brothers in sisters in Christ whatever we happen to believe and do” is alien to the flow of Christian thought and history.
It is this departure from basic Christian truth that is the core problem, it is this that is dividing the Church. The only ones who say otherwise are (post)modern, liberal Westerners. If St Paul or Basil or Augustine or Vincent or Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, Hooker, Baxter, Taylor, Laud or any believer from the first 1700 years of Church history read your last two paragraphs in post #29, how do you think they would respond?
With regard to this statement:
“From what I know of Anglicanism, our ability to do this kind of wrestling and dealing with one another and vast difference has been one of our unique contributions to Christianity.”
So historical revisionists would tell you. It would be closer to the
truth, though, to say that the liberal cuckoo has laid its eggs in the Anglican nest and is now trying to convince us that its egges have always been there.
Geoffrey Kirk describes it beautifully here:
“The aim of Liberal Entryism is to steal the assets (and especially the intellectual property) of the previous occupants. It is important to them to present themselves as the legitimate heirs of the Christian centuries. And in order to do so they have both to re-invent Anglicanism as traditionally tolerant of almost any doctrinal deviation (which, needless to say, it has never been), and to persecute to extinction those who have the temerity to point out the deception.”
Excerpted from this article:
[url=http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/17965/#more]Geoffery Kirk[/url]
farstrider (#31) – I think the problems are very real and complex. There is no doubt that certain beliefs held by certain people are not within the norms of traditional Christian thinking or belief (and depending upon which part of the Body of Christ we think embodies the “Truth” will determine which other parts we are want to condemn). We need to forthrightly deal with all this – but the “how” of dealing with it is what distinguishes us as Christians as opposed to those who abide within the systems-of-this-world. The acrimony and division can be traced back to the presuppositional foundation from which we attempt to solve our troubles, firstly.
How we engage one another – that is a primary problem. I have no doubt that Jefferts-Schori desires to glorify God and bring reconciliation between God and man. I have no doubt that Duncan wants the same thing. Yet, each demonizes the other. It is in the demonization that we act unchristian and are a very poor witness.
Post-modernity is certainly a challenge for Modernists. Since at least GenX, most everyone in the West has been and will be formed within Post-Modernism (and what exactly “post-modernism” entails is still up for grabs). In some ways, post-modernism is good for Christianity. For example, in the way it allows for the re-introduction of mystery within the Christian experience (a pre-Modernist notion). Post-modernism simply is, and to rail against it doesn’t change anything.
Concerning the list of men… Luther (1483-1546) wasn’t a Modernist and didn’t process ideas and information the way we do today, or Calvin (1509-1564), or Hooker (1554-1600), etc. We generally overlay our presuppositions upon their writings and re-interpret what they wrote to fit within our Western and Modernist way of thinking.
To them, I suspect, the way we think now (Modernisticly) would be looked upon as suspiciously as today’s Modernists regard Post-Modernism. Believers up through the first 1700 years of the Church simply saw the world differently than we do. If we don’t understand that, we get ourselves into trouble.
[blockquote]The acrimony and division can be traced back to the presuppositional foundation from which we attempt to solve our troubles…[/blockquote]
Yes. All of us work from certain presuppositions, but there are some presuppositions that are shared by (and have been shared by) Catholic, Protestant and Eastern Churches for nearly two thousand years. Those are Christian presuppositions and should not be equated with liberal presuppositions as though both are equally vaild within an ecclesial context.
[blockquote]Post-modernism simply is, and to rail against it doesn’t change anything.[/blockquote]
I have re-read my earlier posts and I am quite sure I wasn’t railing against post-modernity. It has, as you have said, opened some doors for the Church; it has also fostered a distrust of propositional truth that goes far beyond a useful critique of modernist foibles. In my experience those who identify themselves as post-modern have a tendency to absorb the orthodoxy of the previous two millennia into modernity as though modernists invented propositional truth. This simply isn’t the case.
[blockquote]Concerning the list of men… We generally overlay our presuppositions upon their writings and re-interpret what they wrote to fit within our Western and Modernist way of thinking.[/blockquote]
Again, we are as prone to read everything in terms of “eras” now as people in the fifties were prone to read everything through the lens of Freud. It’s not that cut and dried. If you argued with any of the listed theologians and saints that the late-liberal theologies of the West were Christian, they would likely excommunicate you for a heretic– and not because they were modernists, but because they were Christians.
As you are a priest I am sure you are fairly familiar, at least, with Church history. Try to import the liberal rationale into the Councils of Nicea and imagine the outcome. What about the Fourth Lateran Council, or the Diet of Worms? What about St Irenaeus’ debates with the gnostics of 2nd century Lyons, or St Paul’s reaction to the Judaizers in Galatia.
Understand me– I am not defending modernity; I am defending the faith of the Church from current trends which try to locate its orthodox belligerence only in terms of the Post-Enlightenment West. Modernists may defend the truth with intensity, but it was also modernists who attacked the faith– and more, the modernist defenders acted no differently than their Pre-modern predecessors (although they had a different tool box). The same will be true of Post-modernists, if they hope to stand within the Great Tradition. Relativism has no place in Christian doctrine or practice; it never has.
farstrider: My comment about railing wasn’t directly leveled at you, but the general timber of many who react against those who live or argue within post-modernism, generally.
When I talk about presuppositions, I’m not so much referring to the presuppositions that lead to the formation of our ideas or opinions, but those that lead to the way act and react and act or regard others – how we attempt to [i]solve[/i] our problems.
You wrote, “If you argued with any of the listed theologians and saints that the late-liberal theologies of the West were Christian, they would likely excommunicate you for a heretic– and not because they were modernists, but because they were Christians.”
True.
But, I guess I’m trying to come to how we interact and regard one another, rather than the positions with which we disagree. “Iron sharpening iron” is hard work, but it necessitates difference and resistance and to a degree conflict – yet, we continue on with one another. I don’t want to always be with people with whom I agree, because I will not be challenged to grow. Does that makes sense? Anglicanism has historically been full of people who disagree vehemently over very important issues, yet remained together, and I think that dynamic keeps all of us balanced.
I suspect that God is more concerned about how we engage one another, how we act toward one another, the kind of witness we present to a lost word by means of how well we consider one another, rather than whether or not we agree on every point of belief, particularly since we all see as through a glass dimly. The two great commands of Jesus are very ambiguous, which makes obeying them all the more difficult, and not another Levitical Code type list of laws, which are far easier to deal with. Jesus’ commands are completely relational.
Yes, we can call out a belief as being wrong or heretical, but in humility how then do we deal with the person or people? Can we see our own wrongheadedness (our own log in our eye)?
And, please don’t take this as some kind of “can’t we all just get along” sentimentality. To love our enemy is the toughest thing humans can be commanded to do!
I think I meant “tamber” rather than “timber.” Sorry…
Hi Bob,
You write:
[blockquote] I suspect that God is more concerned about how we engage one another, how we act toward one another, the kind of witness we present to a lost word by means of how well we consider one another, rather than whether or not we agree on every point of belief, particularly since we all see as through a glass dimly.[/blockquote]
The “money” part of that quote, for me is, “…rather than whether we agree on every point of belief…”
You understand, I hope, that no one has argued that the Church can or will agree on “every point of belief.” What we have said is, there are certain beliefs that are non-negotiable for any Church that considers itself part of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
Most of us would say that these kinds of beliefs matter to God very much indeed– they are what differentiate Christians from “merely” nice people. I’m all for comprehensiveness if that comprehensiveness is preserved through the recognition of clear boundaries of Christian belief. A comprehensiveness that tries to hold Christian and non-Christian theologies in tension within one Church, however, makes that Church into a nonsense.
You’re right that we need both orthodoxy and orthopraxy (extending the latter out beyond Church order to Christ-like love). Love has teeth, though, and it will fight for those who might be led astray.