So it’s official; we are past the worst of the crisis in The Episcopal Church. The presiding Bishop has told us so. The remarkable thing was surely not that she predicted the imminent end of the crisis, but that she admitted that there was a crisis at all.
The eerie thing about TEC has been the ‘business as usual’ attitude of its proprietors as parishes and dioceses have abandoned ship, clergy have been jettisoned and litigation has grown. In the Church of England we have been nervously asking: what in the world is going on, and could it happen here?
An answer to those questions is pressing. And so I will try to give it.
What has been happening? The answer is simple but unpalatable. There has been a logical and inevitable outworking of the Doctrine of Provincial Autonomy.
The idea that provinces of the Communion are sovereign in matters of doctrine and order was invented in the late Sixties/ early Seventies to facilitate the ordination of women to the priesthood.
At the time it must have seemed convenient and unexceptionable. The Communion had always been made up of national churches with their own discrete codes of canon law; provincial autonomy (though it had never actually been exercised in the areas in which it now came into play) was merely a function of that reality.
But ‘untune that string and Hark! what discord follows’. Provincial autonomy, as understood in the United States, had at one leap rendered doctrine and orders subject to geography and democracy. The POLITY of The Episcopal Church (O fatal and oft-repeated word!) had come to mean that the General Convention, by majority voting, could with impunity reverse the Vincentian Canon. It could do what previously had been unknown to any, anywhere and at any time.
It is strange that Americans, with the glaring example of the Civil War in their own history, were not more circumspect about the consequences of democratic self-determination. Its ultimate result is secession. For who is to determine (except arbitrarily) at what level or in what forum finality resides? Is it the Union, or the States? Is it the National Church or the dioceses or the parishes? And since a democratic vote is merely the aggregation of individual consciences, what place does the individual have in this economy?
In recent times The Episcopal Church has placed a high value on individual autonomy, allowing, for example, the continuance in office of plainly heretical bishops from Pike to Spong. More recently the case of Dr Ann Redding has highlighted this issue. Redding claimed to be ‘following Jesus’ into Islam. Now her bishop, Geralyn Wolf, is disciplining her for ‘abandonment of communion’ (the very accusation against those who have left TEC for the Southern Cone).
I have to say that I have a great deal of sympathy for Redding. Her only offence is to fail to take the creeds literally. ‘We Christians, in struggling to express the beauty and dignity of Jesus and the pattern of life he offers, describe him as the ‘only begotten son of God’. That’s how wonderful he is to us. But that is not literal.’ If this is an offence, then it is a very Episcopalian offence. And Bishop Wolf is being inexcusably picky.
In short, it is a strange Church which can tolerate Jack Spong, eject Ann Redding and depose Bob Duncan – in the same breath and for the same reasons. It is a very strange and wholly inconsistent Church which will not extend its tolerance of individuals to dioceses or parishes; and which acknowledges the plenary self-determination of its General Convention, but will not allow the secession of its constituent diocesan Conventions.
What is happening in The Episcopal Church is the gradual unfolding of the implications of Provincial Autonomy. What is remarkable is that no one seems to have noticed the fact.
And can it happen here?
Naturally, what is happening in the United States is taking a very American form. An ecclesial re-run of the War between the States is hardly likely in the United Kingdom – where ecclesial devolution preceded political devolution by decades or even centuries, and where the latter is unlikely to lead to bloodshed. But if the question is: ‘will the liberal tendency in the Church of England prove as rapacious as its North American counterparts?’ the answer is, most probably, yes.
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.
People talk about ‘illiberal liberals’ as though it were a paradox and as though there were in fact another kind. But I beg to differ. If, as the proponents of women’s ordination and homosexual equality have done, you advance your case by fabricating evidence and rewriting history, you have no course, in the end, but to treat as enemies those who seek to nail the lie.
And if you base yourself on an ethical a priori proposition, you have nothing to stand on except assertion, which will consequently degenerate into violence, physical or intellectual. We can agree with Lady Bracknell that it ‘reminds one of the worst excesses of the French Revolution. And I presume you know what that unfortunate movement led to?’
What is already evident in some quarters – where revisionists are crying ‘We are the real Catholics’ whilst shying bricks at the Holy See – cannot, as I see it, fail to become the stance of the whole church, which, to justify its self-will, will wilfully sever itself from the root of which it is a branch.
Mrs Schori may well think (but she would think that, wouldn’t she?) that the crisis in The Episcopal Church is nearing its conclusion. But there can be no doubt that the manner in which she is seeking to end it is likely to store up further problems in the Communion as a whole. Bishop Bob Duncan, who is not famous for his jokes, has a good one up his sleeve: that more bishops of the Anglican Communion recognize him than recognize his former Primate.
He is probably right.
–This article appears in the November 2008 edition of New Directions
A well-written piece!
You are correct that Provincial Autonomy is the issue which has enabled TEC to drift so far from normal christian doctrine and behavior.
I hope the new North American Church or province will live closely with other provinces even as it loosens its African links.
http://www.pwcweb.com/ecw
Placet!
Wow, that is an incredibly lucid analysis, and methinketh quite correct.
The difference, of course, between Redding and Spong is that she was a priest and he was a bishop, and that by happy circumstance (at least from my perspective) Redding’s bishop is one of the more reasonably Anglican bishops in ECUSA. Individual bishops make act expeditiously; the house as a whole clearly cannot. Also, it is surely a misrepresentation to make the kind of comparison between Redding and (say) Duncan that is drawn here; it’s almost as if Bp. Wolf is being condemned for doing her job.
In many respects I agree with this article as far as it applies to the American church. There is clearly a large faction in the C of E which thinks the same way, but at present neither Cantuar nor Ebor agrees.
I dont think he was criticising Bishop Wolf just pointing out the absurd inconsisitent nature of TEC. I loved the part about Liberal Entyrism – it was quite a coup for the left to take the assets of the Republican Party at Prayer inside of two generations.
I agree with #4 , and previous – this is incredibly lucid. The money paragraph is the one that lays out the liberals’ aims: “The aim of Liberal Entryism is [b]to steal the assets[/b] (and especially the intellectual property) of the previous occupants. It is important to them [b]to present themselves as the legitimate heirs of the Christian centuries[/b]. And in order to do so they have both to [b]re-invent Anglicanism[/b]”…. (my bolding)
This is I think why the movement has been fomented in the universities, both in the UK and the USA, seeping out in a later generation to the educated suburbs and those churches of the middle class. It is a ‘well-dressed’ leftist revolution without physical violence, so far, yet showing every sign of fomenting that also as militant gays in CA take up the cause the Episcopal Church there champions….
America could yet experience some excesses like those of the French Revolution.
Great piece.
Regarding Redding… I am glad Bishop Wold did what she did. On the other hand, she did it only after the traditionalist blogosphere drew attention to Redding’s bold heresies, and then major media outlets began carrying the story, sometimes with implicit mockery. Only when it became colossally embarrassing did Wolf intervene.
Now, I’ll say at once that Wolf might have done it anyway, even if all the world wasn’t making fun of TEC over it. But there’s no evidence of that, unfortunately.
It does appear that Wolf is indeed planning to defrock her, which is certainly encouraging. The latest news story of any length which I can find is this Oct 10 piece from the Seattle Times:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008246825_redding10m.html
[url=http://despair.com/meetings.html]Indeed.[/url]
Jon, remember that Redding was, in effect, on loan to another diocese. It wasn’t unreasonable that Wolf wasn’t aware of what was going on.
I’ll take “entryism” a step further, BTW: the whole point of the exercise is the belief that the church represents a nexus of power from which to change societal attitudes.
Reading this insightful piece by Kirk made me think of Robert Jenson’s own insights into why “Western Christendom is now baffled by its God†(p.25).
Jenson reveals the depths of our contemporary confusion in his contribution, “The Christian Doctrine of God’, to [i]Keeping the Faith: Essays to Mark the Centenary of[/i] Lux Mundi, ed. Geoffrey Wainwright (1989). His section II is especially helpful as it links directly with Kirk’s remarks on Provincial Autonomy. For God will be “Useless in a Mechanistic World†(and notably in one whose polity is similarly modelled); God will be “Offensive in an Emancipated Worldâ€; and God’s “Particularity in a World of Universal Acquaintance†will be not only “disappointing†but down-right “implausible†and “utterly bewilderingâ€.
The roots of our present woes are embedded in the Church’s complete failure to deal with modernity’s challenge, let alone postmodernism’s pot-pourri. The temptation is to cut and paste Jenson’s entire essay. But copyright laws prohibit such a move! I trust readers will be able to track down a copy in a decent library. Now; there’s a prayer!
Homerun.
#10… I agree that, if true, it wasn’t unreasonable that Wolf wasn’t aware of her apostate priestess. But there’s simply insufficient evidence to tell whether that was true or not — or the related question of whether she would have acted if it hadn’t become a media scandal.
What I am objecting to is — to give an analogy — if everybody were talking about what a brave and good man a certain firefighter was for pulling a little boy out of a burning building, when he only did so AFTER the cameras were all trained on him and after he found out that the boy was Bill Gates’ heir. It’s very possible he was planning to do it anyway — who knows? The man may well have the courage of a lion and the selflessness of a saint. But although we can’t and shouldn’t conclude he’s a scoundrel, the circumstances don’t rationally permit us to give him a medal either.
I remember… because I watched the case develop… that it took weeks between the news breaking and gradually getting more and more embarrassing, and then finally major media outlet after each other doing a big story on it — with no word from Wolf during this time but plenty of support from the bishop of Olympia — when finally it reached a place where it was obvious it wasn’t going to go away; and then Wolf did something.
Again, let me emphasize that she might have done the same thing all along, even if it had been a quiet story that virtually no one heard of. Quite possibly. But then again, I might pull a boy from a burning building tomorrow. Possibly. Until that happens, it’s pointless to canonize me for something that I didn’t do. That was all i was saying.
As someone who knows and respects Anne Redding, I’ve become resigned to the fact that every time her name is mentioned on T19 it will be for the purpose of slamming both her and TEC. I don’t like it, but this is a reasserting site and I suppose it’s inevitable.
But I will object, futilely, to likening the action of +Wolf in inhibiting Anne Redding to that of a firefighter heroically pulling a boy out of a burning building. I’m sure that +Wolf is doing what she believes is right, and I know that most T19 readers will agree with her, but let’s keep some sense of proportion here. This is not a case of heroic courage against great danger, this is a case of a bishop choosing to exercise the authority which is her prerogative. Praise her for it if you like, but please, try not to get carried away with it.
I agree, Ross. I don’t praise Wolf. I don’t criticize her either.
After Wolf’s decision a year or more ago, however, a lot of traditionalists did consider her very praiseworthy, which I objected to at the time and still do. The analogy about a firefighter was to give an example of how a person could do a good thing, but the circumstances in which it was done really prevent us from honoring him for his motives.
Now you of course don’t consider Wolf’s action praiseworthy for additional reasons — because you aren’t convinced that Redding was doing anything wrong. But that’s a whole other issue. My point was that, even if one does agree that Wolf’s action was a good action to take, and that Redding was doing something very wrong, the circumstances surrounding it prevent us from concluding that the action reveals Wolf to be a defender of the faith in the sense that T19’ers understand that role to be. Maybe she is — but she sure took a while to do it.