“The new grouping is, in the eyes of many,” said [Ephram] Radner, “representative of diverse bodies whose theology and ecclesiology is, taken together, incoherent, and perhaps in some cases even incompatible.”
That bodes ill for the denomination’s future, [Ian] Douglas said. “Those who have been quick to separate themselves out in the past have that as part of their operational DNA,” he said.
Still, not everyone is writing off the new church.
“We cannot predict the future,” said David L. Holmes a professor of religious history at the College of William & Mary in Williamsburg, Va., “but my hunch would be that this new Anglican denomination will persist over the years.”
Realistically, if the Covenant gets approved, signing on would clearly differentiate this new Body from the ECUSA/TEC/GCC/EO-PAC which won’t.
An option not remembered by the great covenant-hopers in this short article.
Sigh…it is Donatism, plain and simple. Ever purer in its own mind, and inevitably some within it will find it not pure enough, then another schism, and another. I remember sitting in a meeting with Bob Duncan about ten years ago and listening to him speak expansively to his entourage about the defects of the evangelicals at Trinity School of Divinity. Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics will not be hanging together for very long.
Drs. Radner and Douglas believe in a church where Christ is an option, morality is an illusion, and incoherence is the standard of rationality. That enables them to speak so cogently and knowledgeably of “theological incoherence”, “incompatibility” and “operational DNA”.
Dan Crawford, you are pushing things in what you claim about Radner’s+ beliefs. We will delete comments that become personal attacks on Dr. Radner, or Ian Douglas+ for that matter.
Focus on what they said and the text of the article rather than making personal attacks and accusations.
–the elves
Actually, I think Radner might be right about the problems inherent in the attempt — I’m not sure what holds Anglo-Catholics, Evangelicals, and the other factions together over the long run. History held ECUSA together, and it is no longer enough. It may be time for the evangelicals to become more purely protestant, and the Anglo-Catholics to go ahead and join Rome. That means leaving a lot behind, but I’m less and less sure that the bits and pieces of property are worth the rancor and bitterness that will be incurred trying to hold on to them.
I’m inclined to agree with you, Franz. If the depth of disagreement is truly sufficient to push someone beyond the ecclesial boundary of the Episcopal Church, there are far less divisive–and less theologically problematic–options than schism. Which is the point I was rather acidly making about “Donatism” earlier. That path is well-trod.
“The new grouping is, in the eyes of many,” said Radner, “representative of diverse bodies whose theology and ecclesiology is, taken together, incoherent, and perhaps in some cases even incompatible.”
And this is different from TEC how? Or is this a statement that the ACI is theologically unified with Chane, Bennison and Andrus, perhaps even Spong, but not Duncan or Iker? I don’t think that makes sense. Or if it does, it is upsetting.
Dan, the elves are once again showing their leanings on this issue. It’s Kendall’s blog and he can do what he wants, but I think your remarks were right on you were only responding in kind.
I thnk the “elves'” point is that one ought not to be ascribing views to people that they clearly would not affirm or recognize as their own. That is hardly a “leaning,” but a basic starting point for serious (and civil) discourse.
I’m not sure where Fr Radner, et al, are in all this. However, if he is self-identified conservative, or orthodox, the kind of thinking and comments which are constantly being attributed to him these days do seem to be unhelpful to anyone whatsoever except KJS and her friends, to whose ears Fr Rander’s words must be the purest music since they play directly into their hands.
I can’t answer the question regarding “What’s Ahead for the Fractured Episcopal Church?”
But I can tell you that I will not worship in a revisionist parish. I would consider myself to be aiding and abetting heretical church leadership if I were to do so.
This is not an idle statement. My wife and I live in Vermont and worship in the Diocese of Albany. My wife was a contributing member of the Washington Cathedral and cancelled her membership. When discussing religious affiliation I make a point of informing my listener that I am a member of a parish of the Diocese of Albany, a traditional and ortyhodox diocese under a bishop who adheres to “…the Faith once given….”
RE: “Which is the point I was rather acidly making about “Donatism†earlier.”
Well know it wasn’t the point — because apparently you don’t know what “Donatism” actually was — and it wasn’t particularly “acid” because first people would have to care about what you said.
I think pendennis is right on. On the one hand, ECUSA loyalists point to the fabulous comprehensiveness of the institution (at least historically): how the Anglo-Catholic, the evangelical, the high churchman, the broad churchman and so forth could all get along. On the other hand, they’ve now taken to aping the talking points of the Left that the same mixture placed in a boundary not called “ECUSA” is “incoherent.”
In my view, Anglicanism is incoherent. Still, it has usually been able to survive its incoherence because the competing parties exhibited relatively good faith toward each other, albeit tinged, at times, with real antagonism. Moreover, despite the ranting from the loyalist left and right about the supposed congregationalist innovations of the FedCons, Episcopalianism has always been functionally so, i.e., I can tolerate the happy-clappy parish 5 miles away if I can be left alone with incense and adoration of the reserved Host at mine.
What’s changed is the good faith part; it no longer exists within ECUSA, while it very well may in CCP/ACNA (the jury, admittedly, being still out) – and, on that score, the edge goes not to the legacy institution, but to its offshoot.
#9, you made our point very well, thank you.
#8, my comment above in no way reflects my personal beliefs or any “leaning.” If you want my “personal leaning,” I happen to find Dr. Radner’s comments, if quoted accurately, very frustrating. And, for the record, I am pleased with what happened in Wheaton this week.
I am merely attempting to help Kendall in his quest for civil discussion in the comment threads. Claiming Radner+ and Douglas+ share the same beliefs is not accurate nor is it helpful to serious discussion.
Feel free to disagree with Radner+ and criticize his remarks. But criticize his [b]arguments[/b] rather than making a personal attack, which includes making false, unprovable statements about what you think he believes.
–elfgirl, speaking personally. [Not something I do too often, but I figured it might help clarify why I’ve left the warnings I have.]
Sarah, Sarah! Don’t feed the trolls…
“What’s Ahead for the Fractured Episcopal Church?â€
When the pillars are removed, the building collapses. Implosion. After (decades of) imploration. Then mission.
Then rebuilding.
Well, Sarah, since this “troll” has spent about a quarter of a century teaching and publishing about the early (III-VI centuries) intellectual history of Christianity, I hope I have gleaned some little bit of knowledge about Donatism. I was referring to the alarming tendency of the promoters of the new “province” to fall back on the same sorts of argumentation used by the Donatists. Naturally the context and issues are quite different, but a good reading of Augustine would be helpful here. It would be a shame if indeed no one cared, because quite important matters of ecclesiology are involved here.
What’s ahead for TEC?
Not this: “Head of Orthodox Church in America expresses admiration and support for Anglicans who are realigning” (with a nice photo of the Metropolitan and Bishop Iker)
http://texanglican.blogspot.com/
What’s ahead for TEC?
Not this:
“Primates of the GAFCON Primates’ Council meeting in London have issued the following statement about the Province of the Anglican Church in North America:
We welcome the news of the North American Anglican Province in formation. We fully support this development with our prayer and blessing, since it demonstrates the determination of these faithful Christians to remain authentic Anglicans.
North American Anglicans have been tragically divided since 2003 when activities condemned by the clear teaching of Scripture and the vast majority of the Anglican Communion were publicly endorsed. This has left many Anglicans without a proper spiritual home. The steps taken to form the new Province are a necessary initiative. A new Province will draw together in unity many of those who wish to remain faithful to the teaching of God’s Word, and also create the highest level of fellowship possible with the wider Anglican Communion.
Furthermore, it releases the energy of many Anglican Christians to be involved in mission, free from the difficulties of remaining in fellowship with those who have so clearly disregarded the Word of God.
6th December, 2008 AD”
Re: #13,
About a year ago I discovered the interesting book *Salve Mater* by Frederick Joseph Kinsman (1868-1944), which makes virtually the same point that you were making in your second paragraph. Kinsman was PECUSA Bishop of Delaware from 1908 to 1919, and before that Professor of Church History at Berkeley Divinity School, and then at General Seminary. In 1919 he resigned his see and became a Catholic, two weeks after he finished his book. In some respects his analysis of “Anglicanism” and “the Elizabethan Settlement” is astonishingly prescient — but then he had before his eyes a “Spong before Spong” and a “Pike before Pike” in William Montgomery Brown (1855-1937), Bishop of Arkansas from 1887 to 1912, who after resigning from his diocese became a Communist in 1919, but insisted on remaining active as a retired bishop. He had to be deposed in a “heresy trial” in 1925, but embarassed many of his fellow bishops by citing against some of them their remarks that one need not believe in the Virgin Birth in order to be a priest in good standing, and insisted that they were taking action against him more due to his radical political views than because of his “modern understanding” of Christian doctrines.
Someone who feels that the Anglo-catholic tradition and the evangelical tradition are immiscible probably should give up on the Anglican church.
Living in tension between these two traditions, the true via media (as opposed between heresy and orthodoxy), is what has made Anglican church great.
One of the most promising aspects of this non-geographically based province is that “flying” bishops will be built into the system. That way there is no turf battles between the Anglo-catholics and the evangelicals.
In other words, that’s not a bug, it’s a feature!
#18, nice reference. Met Jonah is another recovering Anglican, as is Bishop Tikhon in PA with the OCA.
“The new grouping is, in the eyes of many,” said [Ephram] Radner, “representative of diverse bodies whose theology and ecclesiology is, taken together, incoherent, and perhaps in some cases even incompatible.” A case of the pot calling the kettle black if there ever was one! When Anglicans make statements like this it’s always a giggle.
As for our quarter century publishing and teaching scholar named, “Noprobs” — curious for a scholar to hide behind a pseudonym like this isn’t it? Apparently I share your profession, but we clearly have different understandings of how the thoughtful exchange of ideas should occur.
RE: “I hope I have gleaned some little bit of knowledge about Donatism. . .”
It appears not — a pity.
RE: “t would be a shame if indeed no one cared, because quite important matters of ecclesiology are involved here.”
Oh, people care about ecclesiology — they merely don’t care about your opinion about whether the departing are “donatists”. Hence, your comment was not “rather acid” since . . . nobody cared.
Rather like revisionists calling fellow Episcopalians “bigoted fundamentalists” and then thinking they’ve actually said something insulting.
I smile.
Thanks, Dr. Tighe (#20), for another typically informative history lesson, such as we’ve come to expect from you. Once again, you’ve whetted my appetite to know more. Frederick Joseph Kinsman sounds like a fascinating person.
robroy (#21),
As usual, I fully agree with you, brother. I think we’d both grant that the looseness of the structures of the new province in formation, and its inovative experiment with trying out a high degree of non-geographical linkage in “networks” and “clusters,” will present some huge challenges, but what is amazing to me is actually how far the CCP has come in such a relatively short time. Frankly, it seems miraculous. For the first time, we are seeing a strong centripetal force drawing the scattered fragments of conservative Anglicanism together, instead of the usual centrifugal forces being dominant that have been driving dissident Anglican groups to separate and subdivide for at least the last 30 years.
This is cause for celebration, even if it’s a cautious celebration that is tempered by the reality that there is still a long way to go. Personally, I’ve never been more hopeful about the future prospects of orthodox Anglicanism in North America than I am today.
And in large part that strong sense of hope is because I have such deep admiration for the men who are leading this brave new venture. The quality of leadership involved in this adventuresome movement is very impressive: ++Bob Duncan the Lion-Hearted, +Jack Leo Iker the Valiant, +John Guernsey (one of the two finest priests/bishops I’ve ever known, the other being my mentor +Dan Herzog of Albany), +Bill Atwood, +Martyn Minns, and many others, including the REC’s splendid PB, +Leonard Riches. What an awesome team!
But most of all, I’m hopeful because I see the fingerprints of God all over this movement. And as the brave early American pioneer missionary to Burma, Adoniram Judson, once put it, when asked about his prospects in trying to plant the Church in a very hostile Buddhist country, “the future is as bright as the promises of God.”
Amen. So be it.
David Handy+
Thank you for your post, Dr. Tighe #20. I always learn something when you comment.
I believe I discern a certain petulance here and at the ACI regarding the nascent ACNA. Elves, I hope I don’t run afoul of your rules, but would it not be more correct if the referenced article had added “TEC institutionalist” to its description of Dr. Radner as a “a leading North American conservative?” It would highlight the fact that ACI supports the institution of TEC no matter what it does, while proclaiming their orthodox position from within the structure of TEC canons, consitution, and polity.
As for the pointed Donatism reference, I thought the whole issue of Donatism was whether clergy could validly administer the sacrements [b]after[/b] they had repented of their actions, been received back into the Church Catholic, and restored to a clerical position.
Rob Roy #21
Thanks doc. You have described Anglcanism to a Tee.
May it ever be so.
What’s ahead for TEC? Unless they repent, not this:
Here is Cardinal Ratzinger’s letter to the Plano gathering again. You will note that twice in his message, he mentions unity in truth – and the GAFCON logo has those words, Veritas and Uniti, in Latin on the Cross.
The letter:
From Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
The Vatican, on behalf of Pope John Paul II
I hasten to assure you of my heartfelt prayers for all those taking part in this convocation. The significance of your meeting is sensed far beyond Plano, and even in this City from which Saint Augustine of Canterbury was sent to confirm and strengthen the preaching of Christ’s Gospel in England. Nor can I fail to recall that barely 120 years later, Saint Boniface brought that same Christian faith from England to my own forebears in Germany.
The lives of these saints show us how in the Church of Christ there is a unity in truth and a communion of grace which transcend the borders of any nation. With this in mind, I pray in particular that God’s will may be done by all those who seek that unity in the truth, the gift of Christ himself.
With fraternal regards, I remain
Sincerely yours in Christ,
+Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
Personally, I have always found that the Anglo-Catholic, Evangelical and Charismatic strands reinforced each other and prevented the others from falling into error at least as long as they cling to Scripture. I am comfortable in all three and I reject the idea that one must choose among them.
Bishop Duncan has always been a strong supporter of TESM. And I think this is going to work. It has drawn Anglican strands together, not the least of which is the REC. Those who are involved are willing to work together and do not seem concerned by matters that seem to concern many here who are not involved. It may not suit everyone and that’s OK. Stay in TEC or go where you are comfortable.
Br. Michael said
“Personally, I have always found that the Anglo-Catholic, Evangelical and Charismatic strands reinforced each other and prevented the others from falling into error at least as long as they cling to Scripture. I am comfortable in all three and I reject the idea that one must choose among them.”
I agree with him.
Having been scolded by the elves and having no way of communicating with her personally, I do take exception to her characterization of my comment. I did not attack Dr. Radner or Dr. Douglas. I suggested that since they both remain faithful to an institution I did characterize, they understood clearly what they said. That may offend Ms. Elves, and I apologize for that, but I did not personally attack Radner or Douglas or make any accusation against them. I am surprised given the depth of Ms. Elves feeling about the comment, that it remained in this thread. She could certainly have censored it as she and the other elves have done before.
Please stick to the topic and avoid ad hominem comments or arguing with Elves. There will be no further warnings.
Comment withdrawn as requested by Commenter – elf
In light of #32,m I respoedtfully withdraw my last comment.
[i]I need to issue an apology to Dan Crawford. He posted a second comment which we put in moderation, and having read that, I realize he was not intending to say Dr. Radner is unorthodox (i.e., sharing the same beliefs as Ian Douglas and/or believing that belief in Christ should be optional). He was instead discussing Dr. Radner’s (and Ian Douglas’) support for TEC where such belief often appears to be optional. I was not the only one who misunderstood the original wording, but nonetheless, I am sorry for thinking that the comment was an attack on Dr. Radner.
Here is Dan Crawford’s follow up comment which explains things[/i]
Having been scolded by the elves and having no way of communicating with her personally, I do take exception to her characterization of my comment. I did not attack Dr. Radner or Dr. Douglas. I suggested that since they both remain faithful to an institution I did characterize, they understood clearly what they said. That may offend Ms. Elves, and I apologize for that, but I did not personally attack Radner or Douglas or make any accusation against them. I am surprised given the depth of Ms. Elves feeling about the comment, that it remained in this thread. She could certainly have censored it as she and the other elves have done before.
[i]Note, you can always send us a PM or an e-mail. Sometimes misunderstandings do happen, and we welcome correction. –elfgirl[/i]
#2 Thomas Smith, for as long as I’ve been in the Church……..44 Years…….I’ve never been aware of a time when Evangelicals and Anglo Catholics like me didn’t worship together and get along extremely well, and I’ve been all over. Now that I’m under the protection of the Province of the Southern Cone and in the Anglican Church of North America, I seriously doubt that this situation will change. I am free to express my Anglo Catholic beliefs in my local Church mission, which as it happens, is Evangelical. No one criticizes my beliefs, and as a matter of fact, my vicar leaves it up to me, with his blessing. And I am not alone in our church.
And I agree with Professor Holmes.
See #30 again. This is the soundest of the above arguments, and the one I would use to make the point I also made in a lat er entry: This new province is an AMERICAN province, and its characteristics, its identity, will grow from native roots, not imported ones. Can one have a church both catholic and evangelical? Our roots – if I may be permitted to jumble a metaphor – have risen from seed so cross bred that its origins can only be know to geneticists, for our roots are as much evangelical and Protestant as Catholic. The result is a member of the umbellliferiae (well, that spelling doesn’t look right, does it?) so to speak. We can GROW this new province because it is in native soil. Can we all say ” native soil?” This is good rich stuff and well adapted to a harsh spiritual climate. Rejoice people, we have now given over what the Europeans called corn and we now have maize, that which our ancestors turned into a thousand dishes.
Here, honey, y’all have some grits nah, y’hear. And Americans have some grits. Oh, Christianity, welcome home. Larry
Greetings to cennydd from the Maine Winter. You are right as rain – or snow, in my case. L:arry
I strongly agree with Br. Michael and AnglicanFirst. I have worshipped in a traditional service with incense and bells and full choir that featured strong Evangelical preaching, with many of the songs at Communion coming from the Charismatic renewal movement. In fact I know that our priests at St. Peter’s strive for this inclusion.
In the past, when a Roman Catholic, I’ve attended Catholic Charismatic masses that were strong in emphasis on the gifts of the spirit in the context of the traditional liturgy, and again with strong messages from the Bible and Christ-centered homilies from the Scripture readings for the day.
All three of these streams of Christianity are meant to work together, to strengthen and enhance the others. Not be at war with one another. “the body has many parts, yet is one body”.
Peace
Jim Elliott
Florida
Those who would doubt that the new province can remain together despite their differences on prayerbook and women’s ordination issues are missing a very significant point. This movement is being worked out under the guidance and direction of the Global South Primates. They also have these same differences between them and yet can still work together. The road ahead will be based on sufficient humility to continue in that same spirit. This is not a gathering of American malcontents. It is a reformation spearheaded by the leaders of 75% of all Anglicans in the world.
Hopper,
Bishop Iker has been in impaired communion with women who purport to be ordained for the entire time he has been in TEC — why on earth would he change his opinion about that now that he’s in an Anglican entity that will actually give him and his diocese the freedom of conscience to practice his beliefs about ordination and the nature of the priesthood?
Really — the ignorance and confusion and sheer muddleheadedness of revisionists who have been told for decades now what the issues are for Anglo-Catholic Episcopalians just is amazing.
All of that “listening” and “dialogue” and still a broad chasm of vacancy.
ad hominem comment directed at another commenter removed – Elf
I’d appreciate a definition of “institutionalist” and “institutionalism” by those flopping out those words, it only appears, to show themselves as distinct.
Does it necessarily follow that a person who stays in TECUSA must be labeled as “institutionalist”? And if it is as superficial a label as I think it is being made to be, would it not also follow that a departing congregation that wants to hold onto facilities and property is just as “institutionalist”?
Although there is an admonition inherent in my question, I really don’t care in the discussion of such as much as I want to underscore the elf comment — quit blindly labeling people for superficial reasons in order to show moral superiority.
Matthew 7:24-29 comes to mind and the phrase, ‘great was the fall of it.’
John 5:38-47 is applicable as well, esp. vvs 38, 42 and 46.
Amen, Library Jim (and fellow St Peter’s member)
Cennydd, I share your long experience of the congenial coexistence of evangelical and Anglo-Catholic believers, though always from within TEC. Indeed my own theological path has passed through both camps; I was an early and avid reader of The New Oxford Review.But I”ve also seen, in the course of serving on Commissions on Ministry and such, instances (usually among bishops and clergy, sad to say) of truly uncharitable characterizations of those on the other “side.” I do hope you are right, and that you continue to experience the kind of fellowship you describe. But the old fault lines, combined with a willingness to break communion, give me reason to doubt.
Just to note that the quotation from Ephraim Radner in this report is from a piece he wrote several weeks ago that was discussed at length on [url=http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/17975/]T19[/url] along with the [url=http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/18112/]reply[/url] by Robert Munday. Since Dr. Radner has not retracted or moderated his comments, I suppose they stand, but they are not fresh.
Sorry and my apologies.
The Donatist comparison has been repeated numerous times since the events of General Convention 2003–or, rather, misapplied.
The Donatists were a sect in Northern Africa that disagreed with the rest of Catholic Christendom, not primarily over doctrine, but over discipline. They claimed that the sacraments of sinful clergy were invalid.
According to Augustine, the primary problem with Donatism was not their theological position so much as that they refused to listen to the rest of the Church. Internationally, they were a small sect within Catholic Christendom, confined to a corner of Northern Africa. However, within Northern Africa, they were the majority.
There is indeed a parallel with the current Anglican situation–but not as it is so often claimed. TEC (like the Donatists) is (within the Church Catholic) a small insignificant sect. Even within the Anglican Communion, they are small potatoes–within an ASA of something like 700,000. TEC, like the Donatists, has embraced its own peculiar theological position–a position rejected not only by the vast majority of Catholic Christendom, i.e., not only the Roman Catholic, the Orthodoxy, but the vast majority of Reformation Churches.
Like the Donatists, TEC has also refused to listen to Catholic Christendom. When warned repeatedly by the Anglican Communion that the consecration of Gene Robinson would break the Communion, they preceded anyway. After the consecration, TEC has ignored repeated requests to turn back. When given until GC 2006 to turn back, TEC responded amibiguously. When given until Sept 30, 2007 to clarify whether they intended to turn back, TEC offered further obfuscation.
Like Donatism, TEC’s actions have had international ecclesial consequences. The vast majority of churches in the Anglican Communion are out of or in impaired Communion with TEC at this point. Benedict XVI made it clear when meeting with Rowan Williams that the new situation was unacceptable. The Orthodox Churches have broken off ecumenical relations with TEC.
But there are other parallels between the Donatist situation and the current situation in TEC. While a majority worldwide, the orthodox Catholics in North Africa were a minority in Northern Africa. While a minority in North America, orthodox Anglicans are a majority worldwide. But there is an additional parallel. Although the Donatists were the largest body that was a descendant of Catholic Christendom, Augustine argued that, by refusing to heed the voice of Catholic Christendom, the Donatists were no longer a Catholic body. Augustine did not argue that, regardless of their errors, he must stay within the Donatist Church because they were the historical descendants of the Catholics in Northern Africa. To the contrary, Augustine refused to share communion with them.
There were, accordingly, overlapping jurisdictions in Northern Africa. For every Donatist bishop, there was a Catholic bishop. When Catholic bishops outside Northern Africa recognized Augustine or visited him, they were guilty of “border crossing.”
However, a far more relevant parallel is not between TEC and the Donatists, but between TEC and the Arians or Nestorians. TEC’s new position on sexuality is every bit as much a departure from historic orthodoxy as were the theologies of Arius or Nestorius. I would argue more so, because TEC’s new theology is a rather clear repudiation of the authority of Scripture, and the adoption of an enthusiast ecclesiology. That the issue is not primarily about sexuality has been clear from the repeated statements of the Presiding Bishop and others that behind TEC’s theology about sexuality is a pluralist soteriology that reduces Jesus Christ to one saviour among many, and consequently has no definable soteriology or doctrine whatsoever, except for the doctrine of inclusiveness and diversity itself–which cannot be questioned. The Presiding Bishop’s recent comments are simply illustrative of the theology that she has voiced many times:
[blockquote] She emphasized that all Episcopalians were welcome “if they want to be part of a diverse church. . . . But the expectation has to be that we are not a single-issue church. We’re not a church that says you have to believe this one thing in this one way and there is no room for difference of opinion.”[/blockquote]
There is no question in my mind what would have been the response of the two great bishops of Alexandria–Athanasius and Cyril–to a theology that said “you do not have to believe this one thing in this one way and there is no room for difference of opinion.” They broke communion with Arius and Nestorius over issues that some would regard as “differences of opinion.” Any attempt to disparage those who have left TEC for GAFCON is ignoring the central issue unless it is recognized up front that the disagreement is not about “differences of opinion,” but over what constitutes heresy.
#’s 34, 38, and 39 — I certainly hope that you are right, but I still have my doubts, because I don’t think Anglicanism is sufficiently well defined, outside of institutional history, to hold together. We could all hang out under the ECUSA umbrella, because Providence had brought us there, and an affection for the BCP, and certain forms of worship and polity, kept us together. Sustaining that arrangement required some minimal degree of common theology, a tolerance of variety of practice within the (wide) scope allowed by the BCP and distinctively Episcopal traditions, and a sense of restraint. The re-appraisers have shattered that arrangement, so the issue then becomes, what’s next?
I wish the new province the best, but I’m not persuaded that its development would (or should) dissuade a catholic oriented Episcopalian from going over to Rome, or a more protestant oriented one from becoming Lutheran or Presbyterian.
William Witt, thank you for the very explicative discussion of Donatism and its current parallels. The claims by certain adherents of the NEW THANG GOZPELL (C) that they and they alone clearly place them in the Donatist camp of eccesiology and over against the Anglican Communion and the Church catholic. The constant abuse of this historical analogy by such adherents in an attempt to derail the historical is itself quite instructive.
The major point, as you clearly elucidate, is the aberrant soteriology which is gnostic and non-catholic. It is not about sexuality issues in the main. It is about The Faith. I should deary love to hear Athanasius on these matters in current idiom. I have some suspicions that were he let loose amongst the current deniers, barbershops would again resound to pithy, singable, proper statements of the nature of Our Lord Jesus Christ. No doubt the other issue would be addressed in a similar manner with all the pithy characterizations of the person in the street. The very possibilities are enormously humorous.
I do not agree with Dr. Radner’s characterization of the various bodies coming together. A correct understanding of Anglicanism, embraces the best of Catholicism and the best of the Reform Tradition. It is clear when you have the last three Anglo-catholic Diocese and one evangelical Diocese come together that God has touched the hearts and minds of both streams for unity. Basically, I am more evangelical than anything else but have gone to Nashotah House to study the Anglo-catholic tradition and have gained a deeper appreciation for this stream of Anglicanism. I see that the three stream come together wonderful (including the charismatic stream–the third stream). It is wonderful when this happens….
Nor do I see what is happening as Donatism and reject that argument soundly. What is happening in TEC, ACiC and even the COE, is a redefining of Anglicanism and Christianity that says it is one way among many and all are valid. This is a reality of heresy, false teaching. The argument that Schism is worse than heresy because false teaching can be corrected and schism continues forever is another false argument. Heresy leads to separation and you can call it what you want…separation to protect the care of souls or schism. Blaming the reasserters for this situation is also unfair. Clearly the ACI has decided to take one path. Some have decided to take another. There seems to be a lot of negative heat between the two position. It reminds me of the conflicts the arises from different Worldviews. Because of the profound differences people hold with different Worldviews they cannot accept the other’s position. This is what I see going on today.
Dr. Radner and the ACI are wonderful Christians and Anglicans. However, I believe that those leaving and forming the New Province embrace a different Worldview of the Spiritual War we are facing and are seen as something as traitors. I simply do not see it that way but their reaction (and I do see it as reaction and not a response) is in my opinion quite narrow and is not the path of the future.
Is Anglicanism and the Communion at risk of a permanent fracture. Absolutely, there is no doubt about that but such was the case with the Protestant Reformation and I have no doubt that it was necessary and God’s will.
I see today’s time as a new Reformation and refining of Anglicanism, correcting its weaknesses and strengthening it for more challenging days ahead. Persecution of Christians is becoming Politically correct in today’s world…and common in most western countries….
We must get ready for the challenges that are to come and we need to separate to be true to the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.
To those who disagree…God bless you, but we see matters in quite different ways…different Christian Worldviews…I wish this was not the case and that we could be more loving to each other…but this reaction is common when people have such profound fundamental differences.
God bless and Merry Christmas to all
I wonder what the Holy Father’s response to the ACNA will be? Will the Vatican be more welcoming than the ABC? Irrelevant I know but I’m still curious.
William Witt, yours is a masterpiece.
Have any of you all read John Henry Newman’s [i]The Parting of Friends[/i]? From the period of his departure to Rome. The mood is much more respectful of all the griefs and difficulties that attend every permutation of his choices then (and thus ours now) than we seem to be able to give voice to in our day. It seems to me it would be good to seek that kind of humility, wherever God calls us. And then we can profess that with all the might we have within us. Otherwise, it is all ego, bluster and pride. The wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God.
[blockquote]Have any of you all read John Henry Newman’s The Parting of Friends? From the period of his departure to Rome.[/blockquote]
I have more than one friend who has chosen (because of the current unpleasantness) to leave TEC and go to Rome. I have other friends who (despite the current unpleasantness) have decided to stay within TEC and continue to fight the battle. I have other friends who are now part of the new Province. I previously lived in CT, where I was a member of a CT 6 parish, whose strategy (until the bishop invaded our church, changed the locks, removed those of us on the vestry, and deposed our rector) was to fight for change from within. I now reside in the Diocese of Pittsburgh, where I am quite happy with the decision that Diocese has made.
To my friends who have left for Rome, I do bear something like the feeling that Cardinal Newman had about the parting of friends. I am sad, but I still consider them friends To my friends who are staying within TEC, I generally have respect–although it has become rather clear that I do not agree with at least some of them on strategy, or the refusal thereof.
To those who have actually brought this upon this–to bishops who invade church buildings and change the locks on the doors, to Presiding Bishops who promise one thing while with other Primates at Dar Es Salaam, and then sue faithful Christians when back on their own shores, to bishops who are asked to provide clarity about their actions, and then intentionally respond with further obfuscation, to Archbishops who rather than take the necessary actions to deal with the crisis, deliberately structure the Communion’s only once every ten year governing conference so that it cannot govern–to them, I confess my mood is probably more like that of Athanasius when he wrote about his unfortunate disagreements with Arius, or Cyril in his more colorful moments when speaking of Nestorius.
William Witt, thank you for having the patience to respond to the scholarly bluster/filler. Since Thomas Smith stated that he has been “teaching and publishing about the early (III-VI centuries) intellectual history of Christianity”, I assume he already knew all of that, but chose to try the line anyway.
But it’s good for the facts about Donatism to be [i]yet again[/i] publicly exposed on a blog.
I would honestly estimate that those facts have been posted at minimum 150 times over the past five years, for an average of 30 times a year . . . but one can’t state it often enough, it seems.
RE: “. . . . prior to this article I had not previously heard that Iker made his objections official . . . ”
He has repeatedly stated it in public communications, including an interview that I did with him at Lambeth. It’s been a constant now for years. I don’t know how much more a man could say what he believes, without making it any more of an onerous drone.
I honestly think it’s hopeless. You may know now, but along will come in mere moments some other person being all shocked and surprised. For this reason I have basically come to the conclusion that if I have said something about my own viewpoint dozens and dozens of times in writing, that basically if people continue to express confusion and shock, they intend to remain confused and shocked, and there is nothing that I can do about it. But at least I can occasionally jump in and explain — yet again — for another hapless person.
#48. This was genuinely instructive and correctional. These were sound distinctions. I appreciate this effort. Larry
Should not Bishop Iker be in impaired communion with the Bishop(s) that have ordained women priests? I think he is being selective in his “purity” stance.
As to Donatism – I hope Drs. Tighe and Witt will correct me if I am mistaken, but my understanding of it is that the Donatists held that sacraments celebrated by those bishops and priests that had formerly at some time abjured the Faith during persecution were therefore invalid. It was not basically because they refused to listen to the rest of the Church that they were wrong. They were wrong because their belief attacked the very basis of the sacramental system – that is, that the validity of the sacraments do not depend on the moral character or theological orthodoxy of the celebrating minister. We would never be absolutely that we were really partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ in the mass if the Donatist position were correct. It is to this extent that some of the Reasserters hold the Donatist position when they speak as if the sacraments as celebrated in TEC lack validity because of the loose or even heretical statements issuing now and then from its leaders. Yes, Schori”s Christology has at times seemed incoherent or even heretical, but that wouldn’t invalidate a eucharist celebrated by her ( aside from the WO problem). I hope the narrownes of the point I am making is appreciated by other readers.
RE: “Of course, Sarah, Iker has been associated with this new Church in formation which has existed all of three or four days.”
You’re kidding right? All the bishops are supposed to quickly say “and I haven’t changed my mind about any of the things I believed four days ago, by the way”?
RE: “I, however, think it fair to expect the new Church—and it’s leaders—to state … or restate positions.”
Wow — I guess so!
It’s gonna be a loooooonnnnnngggggg coming year if we have to listen to all of that. Good heavens, I hope they don’t. My vote outweights yours! ; > )
RE: “The superciliousness of some few reasserters in their failure to comprehend their own obsession with self-perceived wit, intelligence and correctness of opinion … armed with an abundance of bitter sarcasm and sour accusations—a perpetual preference in responding to those with whom they disagree—never ends.”
Oh come come — pettishness doesn’t become you, Hopper. What if those people’s feelings are hurt over your Low Opinion of their Horrid Actions!!!
They should all be serious like you and me — and they certainly shouldn’t ever point out any ridiculous comments. That might involve too much unseemly enjoyment.
RE: “Sarah, I let your comments speak for themselves.”
Ah Hopper, you are unable to do otherwise, fortunately.
RE: “If this is Christian witness … ”
Well, you have always known that we don’t agree about the definition of the word “Christian” . . .
But seriously, I think if someone examined the number and nature of comments from you over the past five days over here at T19, they’d see how greatly the number and how wild the assertions have increased.
Believe me, it’s been hard work for me to respond to so many of your assertions — I’m sure I’ve even let some slip on by. Thank goodness it’s been entertaining!
[blockquote]It was not basically because they refused to listen to the rest of the Church that they were wrong. They were wrong because their belief attacked the very basis of the sacramental system – that is, that the validity of the sacraments do not depend on the moral character or theological orthodoxy of the celebrating minister.[/blockquote]
Certainly this was an important issue in Augustine’s disagreement with Donatism–but the center of Augustine’s critique was that by refusing to listen to the church Catholic the Donatists lacked charity. But again, even though Augustine admitted the validity of Donatist sacaments, he denied that a Catholic Christian could receive sacraments from a Donatist. So even if TEC’s sacraments are valid–and to the best of my knowledge, no one is denying this–this does not address the issue of contention, whether or not one should remain in Communion with TEC.
[blockquote]It is to this extent that some of the Reasserters hold the Donatist position when they speak as if the sacraments as celebrated in TEC lack validity because of the loose or even heretical statements issuing now and then from its leaders. Yes, Schori”s Christology has at times seemed incoherent or even heretical, but that wouldn’t invalidate a eucharist celebrated by her ( aside from the WO problem).[/blockquote]
I have never heard a reasserter make this claim–again, aside from the WO issue. To leave that issue aside, I would never claim that Gene Robinson’s or Charles Bennison’s or Jon Bruno’s or John Spong’s celebration of the sacraments lacked validity because of their theological views. I don’t know that Athanasius or Cyril ever claimed that the sacraments of Arius or Nestorius were invalid because of their views. At the same time, the historic position of the Catholic Church from patristic times is that one does not share the eucharist with heretics. The standard work on this is Werner Elert’s Eucharist and Church Fellowship in the First Four Centuries (Concordia, 1966).
So the real question here is whether or not the approval of same-sex unions (along with the accompanying theological baggage used to justify it: pluralist soteriology (“Jesus is a way of salvation,” not the exlusive way), inclusiveness without any distinctions (blessing same-sex unions, eucharistic sharing with the non-baptized), claims to new leadings of the Holy Spirit that go against the plain teaching of Scripture (“To Set Our Hope in Christ’s” justification for TEC’s action at GC 2003) constitute heresy, or, rather, are these issues merely adiaphora?
I would argue that TEC’s new theology is one of the most serious heresies imaginable insofar as it makes any ability to make theological distinctions impossible. There are only two heresies possible in TEC right now–the first is that heresies are possible; the second is that congregations own their property.
The PB was only telling the truth when she said that all Episcopalians are welcome . . . “if they want to be part of a diverse church.” And “diverse” in understood in a very particular way. It doesn’t mean, for example, that black people and white people can worship together, or that lovers of Bach can be in the same denomination with lovers of praise music. Rather, what it means is, you can be part of TEC and believe every word of the Nicene Creed. But you can also be part of TEC and deny every word of the Nicene Creed. What you can’t do if you want to be part of TEC is to claim that your bishop or fellow presbyters are heretics if they don’t believe every word of the Nicene Creed. You can be part of TEC and not believe in same-sex blessings. You can be part of TEC and practice same-sex blessings. What you can’t do is to say that practicing same-sex blessings is a damnable heresy, and you will not share communion with those who do it.
But even more important, what you can’t do is to withhold your assessment as a form of protest, or, even worse, try to leave with the property.
But even granted for argument’s sake that TEC’s new theology that every theological issue is adiaphora is itself adiaphora, there are those who believe (rightly or wrongly) that TEC’s new theology is not adiaphora–but heresy. (I would argue that the position that every theological position is adiaphora is not just heresy, but damnable heresy.) Given that conviction, that is the issue that needs to be addressed by those who either approve (or merely tolerate) TEC’s new theology. To make comparisons to Donatism is a refusal to take seriously the issue of disagreement.
A commenter mentioned the “three strands” of traditional Anglicanism – AC, Charismatic, and Evo, that supposedly balanced things out. It used to be High Church, Broad Church, and Low Church. Not that I admire it, but maybe it was Broad Church that balanced out the other two, and acted to hold the communion together. Just a thought. That is not my ecclesiology.
rob k (#70),
I think you’re partially correct. There is no doubt that historically, the broad church or latitudinarian wing of Anglicanism has helped to diffuse the tensions between the low church/Protestant and the high church/Catholic wings of Anglicanism and to help bind the whole Church together by downplaying doctrinal differences and concentrating on what unites us as Anglicans, including a common liturgy and a common polity, including the “historic episcopate,” even while the BCP liturgy and episcopacy were subject to widely differing interpretations.
But I think an even stronger glue or bond that has kept the C of E together historically has been its very nature as an established state church. That is, there was always the coercive power of the state that loomed behind the bishops and the whole ecclesiastical machinery of the national church. And there was always this attractive illusion that there can and should be just one church that encompasses the whole nation (apart from your occasional Jew or agnostic). But that Constantinian dream has been decisiely proven to be a mere mirage with no substance or reality to it.
And that is the great dilemma we now face in this post-Christendom era where the marriage between Church and State has broken down at last, and even the taken-for-granted alliance between Christianity in its various forms and western civilization has likewise run aground on the sandbars of modern skepticism and relativism and an increasingly secular and pluralistic society has demanded a de facto divorce, even if in England it’s not yet de jure.
But needless to say, as a well-known and enthusiastic advocate of what I love to call “3-D Christianity,” I heartily agree with Br. Michael (#30), and AnglicanFirst above, or Jim Elliott likewise, in supporting the whole idea that Anglicanism is particularly well suited for blending together all three dimensions of biblical Christianity: i.e., its evangelical, catholic, and charismatic aspects. And I (for one) adopt this 3-D approach very consciously and intentionally in deliberate contrast and preference to the old-fashioned three party system so familiar to us. That is, I very intentionally substitute the charismatic dimension for the broad church/latitudinarian stream.
From my perspective, Anglicanism is NOT a Via Media kind of religion that merely splits the difference between the two extremes of Rome and Geneva, as if steering a careful middle way between the Scylla of Catholicism and the Charybdis of Reformed Protestantism and eschewing the extremes at both ends of the spectrum. Personally, what I seek is NOT “moderation,” but BALANCE, which is something altogether different. That is, I seek to counterbalance a fervent, full-fledged, zealously evangelical spirit with an unabashed, equally zealous commitment to the rich substance of the catholic inheritance, and maintaining both the evangelical and the catholic dimensions IN FULL STRENGTH, undiluted and uncompromised.
After all, Jesus wasn’t HALF divine and HALF human, but fully both at the same time. And as Trinitarians we don’t split the difference betwen God being three and yet one by saying, OK, we’ll take the via media here and say that God is two! Rather, we maintain the paradox and insist that both seemingly contradictory truths are real. God is in fact both three and one, in a way that simply defies human understanding.
In a similar way, I don’t seek to MODERATE the evangelical and catholic dimensions of Anglicanism, as broad church people do, by tempering their claims; I seek to counterbalance them instead. And the same goes when you add in the vital third dimension, the whole charismtic, Spirit-filled dimension.
In such an understanding, Christianity is NOT merely a bipolar phenomenon, but a triple reality. Contrary to our usual assumptions, Christianity is NOT merely about “Faith and Order,” or “Word and Sacrament,” as we’re so used to thinking. But rather, as I like to put it, full biblical Christianity is about “Faith, Order, and POWER (spiritual power that is),” or “Word, Sacrament, and SPIRIT” (as in the charismatic, spiritual gifts).
Two dimensions are certainly better than just one, and our glory as Anglicans has been to be both “Catholic and Reformed” (well, at least since the Caroline Divines anyway). But I do believe that part of this New Reformation is for us Anglicans to morph from being just tw0 dimensional to finally embracing all three biblical dimensions. For after all, something 2-D, like a piece of paper, is by definition still FLAT. To become lifelike, you must add that vital THIRD dimension, the whole Pentecostal side.
For ultimately, I’m totally convinced, 3-D Christianity is rooted in the Trinitarian nature of the Christian faith and life. And the whole broad church tradition is just as sorely lacking in its appreciation for the whole charismatic dimension as the evangelical and catholic traditions in Anglicanism have been, if not even more so because of its strong appeal to reason and its aversion to “enthusiasm” (in the derogatory British sense of the term).
The Christendom era is over. The State can no longer be counted on to enforce the unity of the Church and punish dissenters. It’s time to move beyond our old three party system that sees Anglicanism as being made up of three schools, what I jokingly like to call “the high and crazy, the low and lazy, and the broad and hazy.” A new tripartite model is in the process of replacing that one, just like a new Global, Post-Colonial Settlement is in the process of supplanting the obsolete Reformation or Elizabethan Settlement (in the terminology of (+)+Bob Duncan the Lion-Hearted).
And yes, that does mean and imply the very deliberate substitution of the charismatic wing of Anglicanism for the broad church wing. At least it does in my own mind. And if that sounds ominous and dangerous to all the latitudinarian types out there reading this, well, you ought to take it that way. I am no friend of broad church Christianity. No, not in the least.
David Handy+
3-D Christian