Theologically, the catholicity of the church arises out of the incarnation of Christ. As Christ has identified himself with the whole of humankind through taking on human flesh, so his people are called to make his grace known through a costly identification with the world.
Implicit in the church’s catholicity is the call to embrace the whole world, to bring the gospel to people of all nations, classes and cultures and to incorporate them into its fellowship. To quote Geoffrey Wainwright,
The differences which nature provides in the matters of sex and race have often been hardened and distorted by culture to produce division and conflict. The catholicity of the Church’s calling gives room and encouragement for both sexes and all races to place themselves under the sovereignty of Christ, which means, when expressed on the social plane, the gift of self for the good of others and of all.
The challenge that confronts the church in every generation is to be able to distinguish between what is cultural (and therefore relative) and what is divinely ordained. If they are to survive (much less be true to their identity as “catholic”) in today’s society churches have to be able to communicate in a variety of cultural forms. They will be places where people’s cultural differences are celebrated.
This is far from taking the attitude that “anything goes”. Nor is it a matter of the church adopting an attitude of moral pluralism. It will involve pain for many, as they must let go of deeply cherished cultural forms in favor of making the eternal gospel more widely known. Yet the end result will be something that truly honors the Lord before whom every knee must one day bow—“a Christian fellowship that rejoices in its diversity, and where people of different races together offer themselves to God, to love each other and increasingly share their lives”.
While the church must be prepared to speak in the cultural language of its day, it also stands in critical isolation from that culture. Once a church has to some extent become contextualized, the temptation to an uncritical identification with the culture is always present. As a result its evangelistic witness is blunted and its prophetic message compromised.
While we must be careful not to identify the Christian faith with the cause of revolution, it must be conceded that there is a tendency for established congregations to become chaplaincies to their members, instead of engaging them in challenging the idols and shibboleths of the contemporary world.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
The Liturgy of the Notices
I just came across this piece of liturgical advice from the Naked Liturgist in New Zealand:
Clever how he turns things on their head, or perhaps it comes naturally to people in that part of the world.
Clever how he turns things on their head, or perhaps it comes naturally to people in that part of the world.
Monday, September 29, 2008
The Creedal Marks of the Church: (2) Holiness
As with the unity of the church, the second creedal mark is a deeply theological statement. The church’s holiness stems not from its members but from its relationship to Christ and from the salvation that it enjoys through faith in him. This is made clear in passages such as Ephesians 1:3-14 and 5:25-27. Hans Küng expresses it thus:
It is God who distinguishes the church, sets it apart, marks it out for his own and makes it holy, by winning power over the hearts of men through his Holy Spirit, by establishing his reign, by justifying and sanctifying the sinner and thereby founding the communion of saints.
Holiness in this sense arises out of an encounter with the living God. While it is not primarily an ethical concept, holiness inevitably involves an ethical element. God not only calls men and women to himself through Christ. He also calls them to be holy and empowers them to live in holiness.
The holiness of the church speaks of the sanctification of each of its members and of the ongoing work of the Spirit of holiness in their lives. William Willimon writes of the church as a counter-cultural phenomenon, a colony of heaven.
In its very existence, the church serves the world not by running errands for the world but by providing a light for the world, that is, by providing an imaginative alternative for society. The chief political task for the church is not to provide suggestions on social policy but to be in our very existence a social policy.
Part of the church’s mandate is to encourage, model and teach a lifestyle among its members that truly lays hold of its identity as salt and light in the world. This mandate will be achieved not through an emphasis on externals, but as Christians are drawn into the costly love of Christ and begin to interpret it in terms of their own lives. Donald Bloesch writes,
What is here proposed is holiness in the world, a piety that is to be lived out in the midst of human suffering and dereliction… Holiness is a gift of God, but it is also a goal that we are called to strive for in this world, in this life. We are summoned neither to separation from nor to solidarity with the world but rather to combat with the evil forces of the world, and this means that the way of holiness is also the way of the cross.
It is God who distinguishes the church, sets it apart, marks it out for his own and makes it holy, by winning power over the hearts of men through his Holy Spirit, by establishing his reign, by justifying and sanctifying the sinner and thereby founding the communion of saints.
Holiness in this sense arises out of an encounter with the living God. While it is not primarily an ethical concept, holiness inevitably involves an ethical element. God not only calls men and women to himself through Christ. He also calls them to be holy and empowers them to live in holiness.
The holiness of the church speaks of the sanctification of each of its members and of the ongoing work of the Spirit of holiness in their lives. William Willimon writes of the church as a counter-cultural phenomenon, a colony of heaven.
In its very existence, the church serves the world not by running errands for the world but by providing a light for the world, that is, by providing an imaginative alternative for society. The chief political task for the church is not to provide suggestions on social policy but to be in our very existence a social policy.
Part of the church’s mandate is to encourage, model and teach a lifestyle among its members that truly lays hold of its identity as salt and light in the world. This mandate will be achieved not through an emphasis on externals, but as Christians are drawn into the costly love of Christ and begin to interpret it in terms of their own lives. Donald Bloesch writes,
What is here proposed is holiness in the world, a piety that is to be lived out in the midst of human suffering and dereliction… Holiness is a gift of God, but it is also a goal that we are called to strive for in this world, in this life. We are summoned neither to separation from nor to solidarity with the world but rather to combat with the evil forces of the world, and this means that the way of holiness is also the way of the cross.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Rowan Williams on the Stock Market Crisis
Here are the concluding paragraphs of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s recent article in The Spectator:
Of course business is not philanthropy, securing profit is a legitimate (if not a morally supreme) motivation for people, and the definition of what’s good for the human community can be pretty widely drawn. It’s true as well that, in some circumstances, loosening up a financial regime to allow for entrepreneurs and innovators to create wealth is necessary to draw whole populations out of poverty. But it is a sort of fundamentalism to say that this alone will secure stable and just outcomes everywhere.
Fundamentalism is a religious word, not inappropriate to the nature of the problem. Marx long ago observed the way in which unbridled capitalism became a kind of mythology, ascribing reality, power and agency to things that had no life in themselves; he was right about that, if about little else. And ascribing independent reality to what you have in fact made yourself is a perfect definition of what the Jewish and Christian Scriptures call idolatry. What the present anxieties and disasters should be teaching us is to ‘keep ourselves from idols’, in the biblical phrase. The mythologies and abstractions, the pseudo-objects of much modern financial culture, are in urgent need of their own Dawkins or Hitchens. We need to be reacquainted with our own capacity to choose — which means acquiring some skills in discerning true faith from false, and re-learning some of the inescapable face-to-face dimensions of human trust.
The entire article may be found here. I think it is well worth the read.
Of course business is not philanthropy, securing profit is a legitimate (if not a morally supreme) motivation for people, and the definition of what’s good for the human community can be pretty widely drawn. It’s true as well that, in some circumstances, loosening up a financial regime to allow for entrepreneurs and innovators to create wealth is necessary to draw whole populations out of poverty. But it is a sort of fundamentalism to say that this alone will secure stable and just outcomes everywhere.
Fundamentalism is a religious word, not inappropriate to the nature of the problem. Marx long ago observed the way in which unbridled capitalism became a kind of mythology, ascribing reality, power and agency to things that had no life in themselves; he was right about that, if about little else. And ascribing independent reality to what you have in fact made yourself is a perfect definition of what the Jewish and Christian Scriptures call idolatry. What the present anxieties and disasters should be teaching us is to ‘keep ourselves from idols’, in the biblical phrase. The mythologies and abstractions, the pseudo-objects of much modern financial culture, are in urgent need of their own Dawkins or Hitchens. We need to be reacquainted with our own capacity to choose — which means acquiring some skills in discerning true faith from false, and re-learning some of the inescapable face-to-face dimensions of human trust.
The entire article may be found here. I think it is well worth the read.
London Times Cryptic Crossword for 28 September
Here is this week’s Sunday cryptic crossword puzzle from the London Times. Click on it to get the full-sized version.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
“Too Big to Fail”
I thought that this piece, which appeared in this week’s New Yorker, was kinda fun:
Before you throw this letter into the proverbial round file, let’s be clear: this is the first time I have ever asked for a bailout from the Federal Reserve. I know what you’re thinking. Why do I deserve your largesse, and I do mean largesse, since I’m asking for five million big ones? The answer is simple. Like many of our nation’s financial institutions, I am simply too big to fail. If investors were allowed to witness the collapse of Freddie, Fannie, and then Andy, I can’t begin to describe what havoc it would wreak on their already frayed nerves. Actually, I can describe it: global financial calamity. I think we can both agree that, to dodge this bullet, ten million dollars is a small price to pay. (I know that I originally asked for five, but since I started writing this letter my financial situation has deteriorated in grave and unexpected ways.)
Why am I too big to fail? It’s important to grasp the critical role that I play in a wide-ranging but fragile web of economic relationships. If I go belly-up, I will no longer be able to tip my doorman when he gets me a taxi. This is not a hypothetical situation. I have studiously avoided tipping him for a solid month now. Consequently, he no longer has cash to spend at the liquor store after work, and the liquor-store owner no longer has money to spend on Internet porn. Given that Internet porn is the only fundamentally sound engine of the American economy, we’re playing with fire here. If that stalwart industry is allowed to fail, Asian porn companies will rush to fill the void, offering porn that is both cheaper to produce and way hotter than ours. What will it take to keep this from happening? There are no guarantees, but sending me a check for twenty million dollars would buy us all valuable time…
Continue reading here.
Before you throw this letter into the proverbial round file, let’s be clear: this is the first time I have ever asked for a bailout from the Federal Reserve. I know what you’re thinking. Why do I deserve your largesse, and I do mean largesse, since I’m asking for five million big ones? The answer is simple. Like many of our nation’s financial institutions, I am simply too big to fail. If investors were allowed to witness the collapse of Freddie, Fannie, and then Andy, I can’t begin to describe what havoc it would wreak on their already frayed nerves. Actually, I can describe it: global financial calamity. I think we can both agree that, to dodge this bullet, ten million dollars is a small price to pay. (I know that I originally asked for five, but since I started writing this letter my financial situation has deteriorated in grave and unexpected ways.)
Why am I too big to fail? It’s important to grasp the critical role that I play in a wide-ranging but fragile web of economic relationships. If I go belly-up, I will no longer be able to tip my doorman when he gets me a taxi. This is not a hypothetical situation. I have studiously avoided tipping him for a solid month now. Consequently, he no longer has cash to spend at the liquor store after work, and the liquor-store owner no longer has money to spend on Internet porn. Given that Internet porn is the only fundamentally sound engine of the American economy, we’re playing with fire here. If that stalwart industry is allowed to fail, Asian porn companies will rush to fill the void, offering porn that is both cheaper to produce and way hotter than ours. What will it take to keep this from happening? There are no guarantees, but sending me a check for twenty million dollars would buy us all valuable time…
Continue reading here.
Cryptic Crossword Solution for 21 September
This is my solution to last Sunday’s puzzle from the London Times:
Thursday, September 25, 2008
The Creedal Marks of the Church: (1) Unity
What ought we to be looking for in a church? The Nicene Creed provides us with four characteristics: It should be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.
What does unity mean for the church? Hans Küng remarks,
The unity of the Church is not simply a natural entity, is not simply moral unanimity and harmony, is not just sociological conformity and uniformity. … The unity of the Church is a spiritual entity. It is not chiefly a unity of the members among themselves, it depends finally not on itself but on the unity of God, which is efficacious through Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit.
Genuine unity in the church can be conceived of only as oneness in and through Christ. René Padilla writes that “the unity resulting from Christ’s work is not an abstract unity, but a new community in which life in Christ becomes the decisive factor”. A picture of this unity is given in Luke’s description of the nascent church on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2:42-47. The members of the first church were men and women who had been “cut to the heart” by the gospel. They signified their acceptance of that message through their submission to baptism and the single-minded priority that they laid on the apostles’ teaching, fellowship, the breaking of bread and prayer.
The unity that Christians share in Christ cannot be reduced to mere uniformity or confused with unanimity. Paul’s image of the body of Christ with each member having its own particular function as a part of the whole, makes this clear. The unity that he envisions is a unity in diversity that depends on a delicate balance between individual freedom and mutual obligation. The unity that the early Christians shared in faith quickly translated into a unity in service and action. Such unity in service can only be on the basis of a deep oneness in faith—a shared experience of spiritual regeneration through Christ.
What does unity mean for the church? Hans Küng remarks,
The unity of the Church is not simply a natural entity, is not simply moral unanimity and harmony, is not just sociological conformity and uniformity. … The unity of the Church is a spiritual entity. It is not chiefly a unity of the members among themselves, it depends finally not on itself but on the unity of God, which is efficacious through Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit.
Genuine unity in the church can be conceived of only as oneness in and through Christ. René Padilla writes that “the unity resulting from Christ’s work is not an abstract unity, but a new community in which life in Christ becomes the decisive factor”. A picture of this unity is given in Luke’s description of the nascent church on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2:42-47. The members of the first church were men and women who had been “cut to the heart” by the gospel. They signified their acceptance of that message through their submission to baptism and the single-minded priority that they laid on the apostles’ teaching, fellowship, the breaking of bread and prayer.
The unity that Christians share in Christ cannot be reduced to mere uniformity or confused with unanimity. Paul’s image of the body of Christ with each member having its own particular function as a part of the whole, makes this clear. The unity that he envisions is a unity in diversity that depends on a delicate balance between individual freedom and mutual obligation. The unity that the early Christians shared in faith quickly translated into a unity in service and action. Such unity in service can only be on the basis of a deep oneness in faith—a shared experience of spiritual regeneration through Christ.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Hypocrisy, Thy Name Is David Booth Beers
Once again the trusty Anglican Curmudgeon has struck gold. One of the arguments around which Katharine Jefferts Schori and her chancellor hinged their campaign to depose Bishop Bob Duncan had to do with their rather idiosyncratic interpretation of what was meant by “the whole number … entitled to vote”. Now the Curmudgeon has discovered that Booth Beers has used exactly the opposite interepretation in the legal suit against the Virginia parishes. The Curmudgeon writes thus:
From the Memorandum written to the members of the House of Bishops on September 12, 2008:
There may also be raised at this meeting the question of whether consent to the deposition of a bishop who has been certified to have abandoned the Communion of this Church must be by a majority of bishops present at the meeting at which the matter is presented or, on the other hand, by a majority of all the voting members of the House whether or not in attendance. Canon IV.9(2) states that the vote to consent must, first, take place at a “regular or special meeting of the House” and, second, be “by a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote”. My Chancellor and the Parliamentarian of the House have both advised me that the canon means that the vote must be by a majority of all the bishops who are at the meeting at which the vote must be taken and who are entitled to vote.
From the Opening Brief filed by Episcopal Church and the Diocese of Virginia on [Section] 57-9 Voting Issues, prepared in part and signed on September 5, 2008 (one week before the above Memorandum) by the law firm Goodwin Procter, of which David Booth Beers is a partner (bold again added, except for the heading, which is in bold in the original):
V. The phrase “majority of the whole number” in § 57-9(A) requires a majority vote of the whole number of “members” eligible to vote, whether or not they voted.
Just as the Court can and should resolve the proper definition of the statutory term “members” as a matter of law, it should, if there is any dispute on this issue, resolve the meaning of the statutory phrase “majority of the whole number” as a matter of law. That is, does the statute require that the vote reflect a majority of “the whole number” of members or only a majority of those who actually cast a ballot?
In their efforts to invoke the statute, the CANA Congregations properly concluded that a majority of “the whole number” was required…
… Furthermore, the Congregations did not simply schedule a congregational meeting at which a vote of those present could be taken. Instead, they went to great lengths to ensure a majority vote of all those who … were eligible to vote…
The Congregations’ own case law … confirms that the above understanding of “majority of the whole number” was correct…
Accordingly, the phrase “majority of the whole number” in § 57-9(A) refers to and requires a majority of the total number of a congregation’s “members” over the age of 18, regardless of how many or how few actually cast a ballot.
TEC’s brief attached a copy of Merriam-Webster's definition of “member” to enhance its argument. Let us do the same here, and attach Merriam-Webster's definition of “hypocrite”:
1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings
From the Memorandum written to the members of the House of Bishops on September 12, 2008:
There may also be raised at this meeting the question of whether consent to the deposition of a bishop who has been certified to have abandoned the Communion of this Church must be by a majority of bishops present at the meeting at which the matter is presented or, on the other hand, by a majority of all the voting members of the House whether or not in attendance. Canon IV.9(2) states that the vote to consent must, first, take place at a “regular or special meeting of the House” and, second, be “by a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote”. My Chancellor and the Parliamentarian of the House have both advised me that the canon means that the vote must be by a majority of all the bishops who are at the meeting at which the vote must be taken and who are entitled to vote.
From the Opening Brief filed by Episcopal Church and the Diocese of Virginia on [Section] 57-9 Voting Issues, prepared in part and signed on September 5, 2008 (one week before the above Memorandum) by the law firm Goodwin Procter, of which David Booth Beers is a partner (bold again added, except for the heading, which is in bold in the original):
V. The phrase “majority of the whole number” in § 57-9(A) requires a majority vote of the whole number of “members” eligible to vote, whether or not they voted.
Just as the Court can and should resolve the proper definition of the statutory term “members” as a matter of law, it should, if there is any dispute on this issue, resolve the meaning of the statutory phrase “majority of the whole number” as a matter of law. That is, does the statute require that the vote reflect a majority of “the whole number” of members or only a majority of those who actually cast a ballot?
In their efforts to invoke the statute, the CANA Congregations properly concluded that a majority of “the whole number” was required…
… Furthermore, the Congregations did not simply schedule a congregational meeting at which a vote of those present could be taken. Instead, they went to great lengths to ensure a majority vote of all those who … were eligible to vote…
The Congregations’ own case law … confirms that the above understanding of “majority of the whole number” was correct…
Accordingly, the phrase “majority of the whole number” in § 57-9(A) refers to and requires a majority of the total number of a congregation’s “members” over the age of 18, regardless of how many or how few actually cast a ballot.
TEC’s brief attached a copy of Merriam-Webster's definition of “member” to enhance its argument. Let us do the same here, and attach Merriam-Webster's definition of “hypocrite”:
1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings
Leaving the Episcopal Church
It’s not about lifestyles; it’s about believing that Christ is God
Here is a fine op-ed piece that appeared today in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. It is by Wendy Paff, faculty member in the English departments of the University of Pittsburgh and La Roche College.
For centuries, all Christian denominations shared core beliefs, of which the most central is that Jesus Christ is God and is a member of the Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Over several decades, many self-titled “progressive” Episcopalians have abandoned as superstition the faith as written and agreed to by the worldwide Anglican Church, of which the U.S. Episcopal Church is a fraction. They have rejected beliefs unquestioned in mainstream Christianity; for example, that Jesus is both man and God, as evidenced by his historical resurrection.
The core of our differences does not lie in the high-profile issues of lifestyle, such as gay marriage or ordination, but in our understanding of who Jesus is. Their departure from all that is Christian is now so great that most members of our worldwide Anglican Church cannot in good conscience celebrate the Lord’s Supper with these progressive Episcopalians.
Many bishops and priests in the Episcopal Church today believe God is an impersonal spirit like “the force” in Star Wars, and that Jesus represents only a good example and teacher, but not God. That is not Christianity.
These leaders claim they represent a majority. They do not. The majority of Anglicans still believe in the tenets of Christianity, as do the majority of Christians worldwide.
The notes, phone calls and letters of support sent to former Pittsburgh Bishop Robert Duncan following his deposition last week (and some in anticipation of it) from every corner of the globe, from “nonprogressive” Episcopal bishops and from leaders of other denominations indicate that any majority claimed by those who voted to depose him is a lie. The kangaroo court of the deposition itself broke every Episcopal rule for such proceedings and reported as a majority vote numbers which are questionable given the number of bishops eligible to vote who were not present.
A difference in beliefs within the Episcopal Church is distressing, but is not necessarily reason to leave. Unfortunately, many of those who hold “progressive” beliefs have gone further than disagreeing with Christian tenets. They have hijacked the denomination into which I was confirmed more than 30 years ago.
These leaders have become intolerant of the traditional Christians in their midst and have sought systemically to suppress those whose beliefs remain Christian by refusing to ordain or appoint them as priests or bishops. Faced with the inability to worship and witness as our faith dictates, we have sought to leave and maintain our membership in the worldwide church from which the Episcopal Church has alienated itself.
In response, we have been harassed by those who call themselves tolerant, as the deposition of Bishop Duncan illustrates. Remember, he was deposed in anticipation of an act not yet taken and with the intent to intimidate those in the Pittsburgh Diocese who soon will be voting on whether to leave the Episcopal Church. We have even been asked to heed his deposition as a warning.
As a good (and agnostic) friend of mine exclaimed,“If they don’t believe in what the church teaches, let them leave and create their own group.” Since they haven’t, and since they have sought to silence us, we must leave.
I seek to leave the Episcopal Church because it no longer teaches or represents that which I believe as a member of the worldwide Anglican Church—that Jesus Christ is God and that He died for my sins and rose again.
Let me add a final note on the assets held by the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh. We traditional Christians have been accused of attempting to “abscond” with that which belongs to the Episcopal Church.
I am leaving the Episcopal Church regardless of the eventual disposition of those assets. I am leaving as a matter of conscience and belief. However, those assets were entrusted to an institution which held fast to the beliefs I now hold by people who shared those beliefs. Those people would not recognize or validate the Episcopal Church as it now exists. That church now desires to use those assets in ways they would not agree to. Who is violating their trust?
Here is a fine op-ed piece that appeared today in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. It is by Wendy Paff, faculty member in the English departments of the University of Pittsburgh and La Roche College.
For centuries, all Christian denominations shared core beliefs, of which the most central is that Jesus Christ is God and is a member of the Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Over several decades, many self-titled “progressive” Episcopalians have abandoned as superstition the faith as written and agreed to by the worldwide Anglican Church, of which the U.S. Episcopal Church is a fraction. They have rejected beliefs unquestioned in mainstream Christianity; for example, that Jesus is both man and God, as evidenced by his historical resurrection.
The core of our differences does not lie in the high-profile issues of lifestyle, such as gay marriage or ordination, but in our understanding of who Jesus is. Their departure from all that is Christian is now so great that most members of our worldwide Anglican Church cannot in good conscience celebrate the Lord’s Supper with these progressive Episcopalians.
Many bishops and priests in the Episcopal Church today believe God is an impersonal spirit like “the force” in Star Wars, and that Jesus represents only a good example and teacher, but not God. That is not Christianity.
These leaders claim they represent a majority. They do not. The majority of Anglicans still believe in the tenets of Christianity, as do the majority of Christians worldwide.
The notes, phone calls and letters of support sent to former Pittsburgh Bishop Robert Duncan following his deposition last week (and some in anticipation of it) from every corner of the globe, from “nonprogressive” Episcopal bishops and from leaders of other denominations indicate that any majority claimed by those who voted to depose him is a lie. The kangaroo court of the deposition itself broke every Episcopal rule for such proceedings and reported as a majority vote numbers which are questionable given the number of bishops eligible to vote who were not present.
A difference in beliefs within the Episcopal Church is distressing, but is not necessarily reason to leave. Unfortunately, many of those who hold “progressive” beliefs have gone further than disagreeing with Christian tenets. They have hijacked the denomination into which I was confirmed more than 30 years ago.
These leaders have become intolerant of the traditional Christians in their midst and have sought systemically to suppress those whose beliefs remain Christian by refusing to ordain or appoint them as priests or bishops. Faced with the inability to worship and witness as our faith dictates, we have sought to leave and maintain our membership in the worldwide church from which the Episcopal Church has alienated itself.
In response, we have been harassed by those who call themselves tolerant, as the deposition of Bishop Duncan illustrates. Remember, he was deposed in anticipation of an act not yet taken and with the intent to intimidate those in the Pittsburgh Diocese who soon will be voting on whether to leave the Episcopal Church. We have even been asked to heed his deposition as a warning.
As a good (and agnostic) friend of mine exclaimed,“If they don’t believe in what the church teaches, let them leave and create their own group.” Since they haven’t, and since they have sought to silence us, we must leave.
I seek to leave the Episcopal Church because it no longer teaches or represents that which I believe as a member of the worldwide Anglican Church—that Jesus Christ is God and that He died for my sins and rose again.
Let me add a final note on the assets held by the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh. We traditional Christians have been accused of attempting to “abscond” with that which belongs to the Episcopal Church.
I am leaving the Episcopal Church regardless of the eventual disposition of those assets. I am leaving as a matter of conscience and belief. However, those assets were entrusted to an institution which held fast to the beliefs I now hold by people who shared those beliefs. Those people would not recognize or validate the Episcopal Church as it now exists. That church now desires to use those assets in ways they would not agree to. Who is violating their trust?
Further Reactions to the Duncan Deposition
Here is part of what Mark McCall of the Anglican Communion Institute has written:
Prior to the meeting of the House of Bishops last week The Anglican Communion Institute, Inc. warned that the “proceeding against Bishop Duncan clearly belong[s] to a larger effort to create an office of Presiding Bishop, and a way of proceeding in the present season, at odds with the constitution and canons of this church.” Following the questionable vote, ACI noted that “the legitimacy of the House’s action and the Presiding Bishop’s leadership has been placed in serious question before the eyes of the Communion and the larger public. No one should minimize the role this may play in the unfolding re-establishment of the Communion’s common life.”
The rest is here.
Here is part of a statement from Archbishop John Chew and the Province of Southeast Asia:
The Province of Southeast Asia will continue to support, remain in full communion and prayerfully explore steps to strengthen our shared life with Anglican leaders like Bishop Bob Duncan and the Diocese of Pittsburgh as well as other TEC bishops who respect the mind of the Communion and remain faithful to the teaching of Scripture as expressed in the tradition and life of the Church. We urge those who have not chosen to ‘walk apart’ to work actively and sincerely with the Windsor-Covenant Process and other measures agreed at the Communion level. This is probably the only remaining opportunity to bind the Communion together out of this crisis which will strengthen our future common life, witness in the world and our place as an Anglican ecclesial family within the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
The rest is here.
Prior to the meeting of the House of Bishops last week The Anglican Communion Institute, Inc. warned that the “proceeding against Bishop Duncan clearly belong[s] to a larger effort to create an office of Presiding Bishop, and a way of proceeding in the present season, at odds with the constitution and canons of this church.” Following the questionable vote, ACI noted that “the legitimacy of the House’s action and the Presiding Bishop’s leadership has been placed in serious question before the eyes of the Communion and the larger public. No one should minimize the role this may play in the unfolding re-establishment of the Communion’s common life.”
The rest is here.
Here is part of a statement from Archbishop John Chew and the Province of Southeast Asia:
The Province of Southeast Asia will continue to support, remain in full communion and prayerfully explore steps to strengthen our shared life with Anglican leaders like Bishop Bob Duncan and the Diocese of Pittsburgh as well as other TEC bishops who respect the mind of the Communion and remain faithful to the teaching of Scripture as expressed in the tradition and life of the Church. We urge those who have not chosen to ‘walk apart’ to work actively and sincerely with the Windsor-Covenant Process and other measures agreed at the Communion level. This is probably the only remaining opportunity to bind the Communion together out of this crisis which will strengthen our future common life, witness in the world and our place as an Anglican ecclesial family within the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
The rest is here.
Give us new province, say orthodox
Here is some of what Ruth Gledhill, of the London Times, has written in reflection on the recent deposition of Bishop Bob Duncan:
Even though Dr Rowan Williams is not planning to comment and has instead headed of to Lourdes with several busloads of Anglican pilgrims, hoping no doubt for a miraculous healing for his church, six of his bishops have today put out their own statement of support for Bishop Duncan. And as we report, one of those bishops, Dr Michael Nazir-Ali of Rochester, has in an interview with me today repeated the call for a new province first made by the Gafcon leaders at their conference this summer. I’ve always held out the hope in my own heart that the split would not come this side of the Atlantic. But I’ve recently spent a little time with some extremely senior laypeople in the conservative moment. They are not “names” familiar to the blogosphere. But it seems there can be little doubt. What has happened there will happen here. Expect property battles and more in years to come…
It has crossed my mind recently that Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori is secretly one of the “orthodox”. That can surely be the only reason that she has created a martyr who is now being venerated by evangelicals worldwide, and who is poised to become the sanctified leader of an orthodox movement that is demanding, and might well get, its own province.
Have we come so far from our Catholic tradition that we have forgotten the power of martyrdom, on which the Western church is built? Does no-one in TEC understand any more the meaning of sacrifice?
Because a martyr is what Bob Duncan now is. The Episcopal Church should not need a heretically catholic Anglican such as me to tell it that the next step up from martyrdom is sainthood. Bishop Duncan’s office has been inundated with emails, phonecalls and letters of support since the ill-advised deposition. Since Friday, he has had personal messages from six primates, including ++Anis and ++Chew, indicating their intention not to recognise the deposition and to support the Pittsburgh “remnant”. There have been all kinds of other ones as well from various bishops, clergy and laity all over the world. They are being catalogued on a new site, set up specially to venerate the deposed bishop.
And now in England, six bishops are pledging their support and saying they will continue to recognise him. Surely that is momentous enough to warrant an archiepiscopal comment? Or perhaps all pretence of episcopal collegiality has been abandoned…
In a telephone interview [Dr Michael Nazir Ali, Bishop of Rochester] said:
“Quite a few American bishops had come to Lambeth, knowing that nothing would change afterwards. I do not think we can take seriously what they agreed at Lambeth. This is of a piece with other meetings where they have been present, have agreed things and where nothing has happened afterwards. This does show that a structural solution is needed for the orthodox in the American church. There must be immediate relief. No talk about panels doing things in the future. We need, they need more importantly, immediate relief from this kind of action taken against them. I hope that a province in due course of the orthodox in America will be recognised in the Anglican Communion.
“Here are loyal Anglicans whose only fault is not wanting to change what they have received. We have been hearing for some time that the orthodox want to be recognised in America. I am not saying that there might be a province straight away. There may be steps to recognising the constituency first, in some way, providing for oversight, which is absolutely essential, and recognising Common Cause Partnership and its leaders as Anglicans in good standing. But in the end I cannot see how we can avoid recognising some kind of entity of the orthodox in the US. I hope [the split] does not come to Britain. That is something we have been working on, to keep the unity of the Church of England intact.”
The rest of her article, which includes the full text of the letter from the six English bishops along with a letter from Bishop Wallace Benn of Anglican Mainstream, is here.
Even though Dr Rowan Williams is not planning to comment and has instead headed of to Lourdes with several busloads of Anglican pilgrims, hoping no doubt for a miraculous healing for his church, six of his bishops have today put out their own statement of support for Bishop Duncan. And as we report, one of those bishops, Dr Michael Nazir-Ali of Rochester, has in an interview with me today repeated the call for a new province first made by the Gafcon leaders at their conference this summer. I’ve always held out the hope in my own heart that the split would not come this side of the Atlantic. But I’ve recently spent a little time with some extremely senior laypeople in the conservative moment. They are not “names” familiar to the blogosphere. But it seems there can be little doubt. What has happened there will happen here. Expect property battles and more in years to come…
It has crossed my mind recently that Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori is secretly one of the “orthodox”. That can surely be the only reason that she has created a martyr who is now being venerated by evangelicals worldwide, and who is poised to become the sanctified leader of an orthodox movement that is demanding, and might well get, its own province.
Have we come so far from our Catholic tradition that we have forgotten the power of martyrdom, on which the Western church is built? Does no-one in TEC understand any more the meaning of sacrifice?
Because a martyr is what Bob Duncan now is. The Episcopal Church should not need a heretically catholic Anglican such as me to tell it that the next step up from martyrdom is sainthood. Bishop Duncan’s office has been inundated with emails, phonecalls and letters of support since the ill-advised deposition. Since Friday, he has had personal messages from six primates, including ++Anis and ++Chew, indicating their intention not to recognise the deposition and to support the Pittsburgh “remnant”. There have been all kinds of other ones as well from various bishops, clergy and laity all over the world. They are being catalogued on a new site, set up specially to venerate the deposed bishop.
And now in England, six bishops are pledging their support and saying they will continue to recognise him. Surely that is momentous enough to warrant an archiepiscopal comment? Or perhaps all pretence of episcopal collegiality has been abandoned…
In a telephone interview [Dr Michael Nazir Ali, Bishop of Rochester] said:
“Quite a few American bishops had come to Lambeth, knowing that nothing would change afterwards. I do not think we can take seriously what they agreed at Lambeth. This is of a piece with other meetings where they have been present, have agreed things and where nothing has happened afterwards. This does show that a structural solution is needed for the orthodox in the American church. There must be immediate relief. No talk about panels doing things in the future. We need, they need more importantly, immediate relief from this kind of action taken against them. I hope that a province in due course of the orthodox in America will be recognised in the Anglican Communion.
“Here are loyal Anglicans whose only fault is not wanting to change what they have received. We have been hearing for some time that the orthodox want to be recognised in America. I am not saying that there might be a province straight away. There may be steps to recognising the constituency first, in some way, providing for oversight, which is absolutely essential, and recognising Common Cause Partnership and its leaders as Anglicans in good standing. But in the end I cannot see how we can avoid recognising some kind of entity of the orthodox in the US. I hope [the split] does not come to Britain. That is something we have been working on, to keep the unity of the Church of England intact.”
The rest of her article, which includes the full text of the letter from the six English bishops along with a letter from Bishop Wallace Benn of Anglican Mainstream, is here.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Cryptic Crossword Solution for 14 September
Here is my solution to the cryptic crossword of 14 September:
Monday, September 22, 2008
The Bishop of Upper South Carolina on the Deposition
Here is what Bishop Dorsey Henderson wrote to his diocese following the meeting of the House of Bishops:
The following is a fairly accurate account of my statement to the House at the very beginning of discussion:
As an attorney—and self-appointed President of the House of Bishops Bar Association—I am wondering whether we are permitting the letter of the canons undermine the spirit for which the canons were crafted.
Let me say clearly that I concur completely with the finding and certification of the Review Committee. My only concern is with the timing. There is no question in my mind that +Bob Duncan intends to leave The Episcopal Church—and in his heart and mind perhaps already has. I don’t doubt that Duncan intends to do exactly what he has said he will do, personally, and with his diocese.
I am persuaded by the legal argument of the (Presiding Bishop’s) Chancellor regarding interpretation of the phrase ‘whole number of bishops entitled to vote’; it is akin to my own views on that issue. So I do not question the validity and legitimacy of our action in finding that John-David Schofield had abandoned.
And I am concerned, too, about the legal issues (especially those relating to property), should abandonment by Duncan not be found at this particular point in time. I appreciate the presentation already made by Bishop Sauls (who had discussed relevant laws of Pennsylvania), but expect that, despite our action, the matter of title to property will nevertheless end up in the secular courts.
But I am influenced heavily by the impact on relationships—relationship within The Episcopal Church and relationships within the Anglican Communion, if we act now rather than acting AFTER the Pittsburgh Convention has its second reading on the proposed constitutional change. To be sure, there will be a price to be paid whether abandonment is determined now or then—but I think the cost will be considerably higher if we are seen to act precipitously. There is a matter of “good will”, of mercy, as well as justice, which I consider relevant.
Yes, Duncan intends to abandon within the meaning of the canon—no doubt in my mind whatsoever. But I think the finding of abandonment will be viewed as less unacceptable, less unfavorably, if the diocesan convention has acted the necessary two times, rather than just one. I also believe that we should put the ball back in Duncan’s court—let the decision be his, not ours.
I also consider it important that we attempt as much as possible to separate what we think and feel about Bob Duncan (and others considering similar moves) from the greater good of Christ’s mission and Church-that is, separate personalities from what, by God’s grace, we can do to promote more effectively both the mission AND the unity of the Church.
I am anxious to hear the thoughts and opinions of others, but this is where I am at the moment. I am not compelled, or even impelled—but I am inclined to vote no on a finding of abandonment now, and to vote yes on any effort to suspend action until after the Pittsburgh convention acts.
My prayer for myself at this point is similar to the line from the hymn we sang today during Morning Prayer: ‘Listen to the voice of wisdom…’
After several hours of discussion and prayer, I ultimately voted “no” on the proposed resolution which would authorize the Presiding Bishop to make a finding of abandonment as defined by the canon. The resolution, however, passed…
As I stated for the benefit of that draft: “This is one of the most somber and solemn occasions in my experience as a bishop. It is a time for prayer for all of us—especially for Bishop Duncan and the Episcopalians of the Diocese of Pittsburgh.”
While I don’t go for all of his arguments in favor of eventual deposition, I am left with the wish that all the bishops (or at least half of them) might have shown the same sense of fair-mindedness and care for the church as this man! You may find the text of his whole letter here.
The following is a fairly accurate account of my statement to the House at the very beginning of discussion:
As an attorney—and self-appointed President of the House of Bishops Bar Association—I am wondering whether we are permitting the letter of the canons undermine the spirit for which the canons were crafted.
Let me say clearly that I concur completely with the finding and certification of the Review Committee. My only concern is with the timing. There is no question in my mind that +Bob Duncan intends to leave The Episcopal Church—and in his heart and mind perhaps already has. I don’t doubt that Duncan intends to do exactly what he has said he will do, personally, and with his diocese.
I am persuaded by the legal argument of the (Presiding Bishop’s) Chancellor regarding interpretation of the phrase ‘whole number of bishops entitled to vote’; it is akin to my own views on that issue. So I do not question the validity and legitimacy of our action in finding that John-David Schofield had abandoned.
And I am concerned, too, about the legal issues (especially those relating to property), should abandonment by Duncan not be found at this particular point in time. I appreciate the presentation already made by Bishop Sauls (who had discussed relevant laws of Pennsylvania), but expect that, despite our action, the matter of title to property will nevertheless end up in the secular courts.
But I am influenced heavily by the impact on relationships—relationship within The Episcopal Church and relationships within the Anglican Communion, if we act now rather than acting AFTER the Pittsburgh Convention has its second reading on the proposed constitutional change. To be sure, there will be a price to be paid whether abandonment is determined now or then—but I think the cost will be considerably higher if we are seen to act precipitously. There is a matter of “good will”, of mercy, as well as justice, which I consider relevant.
Yes, Duncan intends to abandon within the meaning of the canon—no doubt in my mind whatsoever. But I think the finding of abandonment will be viewed as less unacceptable, less unfavorably, if the diocesan convention has acted the necessary two times, rather than just one. I also believe that we should put the ball back in Duncan’s court—let the decision be his, not ours.
I also consider it important that we attempt as much as possible to separate what we think and feel about Bob Duncan (and others considering similar moves) from the greater good of Christ’s mission and Church-that is, separate personalities from what, by God’s grace, we can do to promote more effectively both the mission AND the unity of the Church.
I am anxious to hear the thoughts and opinions of others, but this is where I am at the moment. I am not compelled, or even impelled—but I am inclined to vote no on a finding of abandonment now, and to vote yes on any effort to suspend action until after the Pittsburgh convention acts.
My prayer for myself at this point is similar to the line from the hymn we sang today during Morning Prayer: ‘Listen to the voice of wisdom…’
After several hours of discussion and prayer, I ultimately voted “no” on the proposed resolution which would authorize the Presiding Bishop to make a finding of abandonment as defined by the canon. The resolution, however, passed…
As I stated for the benefit of that draft: “This is one of the most somber and solemn occasions in my experience as a bishop. It is a time for prayer for all of us—especially for Bishop Duncan and the Episcopalians of the Diocese of Pittsburgh.”
While I don’t go for all of his arguments in favor of eventual deposition, I am left with the wish that all the bishops (or at least half of them) might have shown the same sense of fair-mindedness and care for the church as this man! You may find the text of his whole letter here.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
London Times Cryptic Crosswords for 14 & 21 September
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Where from here?
Along with the two previous articles (“The Episcopal Church and the Lambeth Quadrilateral” and “A Sinking Ship?”, these are words that I wrote to my parishioners earlier this month, before the deposition of Bob Duncan. That event has put parishes such as ours in an even more critical position, as will the reactions that will follow it both in the US and more widely in the Anglican Communion.
We stand at a crossroads. Decisions being made on a global level will have repercussions that may reach down through generations. Although on a smaller scale, the same holds true on the local level as well. How do we remain part of a church that, though necessarily flawed and incomplete, still manages to exhibit the creedal characteristics of unity, holiness, catholicity, and apostolicity?
The final paragraph of the Windsor Report, now four years in the past, is both prophetic and sobering:
There remains a very real danger that we will not choose to walk together. Should the call to halt and find ways of continuing in our present communion not be heeded, then we shall have to begin to learn to walk apart. We would much rather not speculate on actions that might need to be taken if, after acceptance by the primates, our recommendations are not implemented. However, we note that there are, in any human dispute, courses that may be followed: processes of mediation and arbitration; non-invitation to relevant representative bodies and meetings; invitation, but to observer status only; and, as an absolute last resort, withdrawal from membership. We earnestly hope that none of these will prove necessary. Our aim throughout has been to work not for division but for healing and restoration. The real challenge of the gospel is whether we live deeply enough in the love of Christ, and care sufficiently for our joint work to bring that love to the world, that we will “make every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4.3). As the primates stated in 2000, “to turn from one another would be to turn away from the Cross”, and indeed from serving the world which God loves and for which Jesus Christ died.
There is ample evidence that many in the Anglican Communion, although refusing to acknowledge it, have by their actions chosen to “walk apart”. To date none of the Instruments of Communion, including most recently the Lambeth Conference of Bishops, has been successful in counteracting the trend. It appears that we are witnessing the gradual dissolution of the Anglican Communion, in Bishop Tom Wright’s words, “like a slow-moving train wreck”.
On a pragmatic level, where does that leave us at Messiah? There are a number of options available to us. What follows are five, but no doubt there are others as well.
(1) Do nothing. We could decide simply to hang tight, keep a low profile, and hope and pray for the best, all the time seeking to hold to our distinctives and to remain a place of lively orthodoxy. I would warn that this path is neither as simple nor as straightforward as it might at first appear.
(2) Reaffirm the Windsor Report. The Vestry has already expressed its commitment to the content and recommendations of the Windsor Report. While it seems that forces within the Communion have worked together to subvert the implementation of the report, the time may not quite have come for a final pronouncement of death. The Covenant Design Group continues to meet, and it may be that there is just enough energy left among the orthodox primates and bishops to make it work. In any event, once again endorsing the Windsor Report would be a moderate (some would say minimal) statement to our bishop and diocese that we choose to remain within the mainstream of Anglicanism and oppose the theological and moral innovations of many in the Episcopal Church.
(3) Apply for Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight. In March 2004 the Episcopal Church House of Bishops opened up the option of receiving pastoral care from a bishop other than the diocesan. The plan is outlined in a document entitled, “Caring for All the Churches” A number of churches across the country—both conservative parishes in liberal dioceses and liberal parishes in conservative dioceses—have already chosen this option, with varying degrees of success. A proposal to take this step has already been brought before our own Vestry and is under consideration. Presumably the delegated bishop would be available for consultation and godly advice, and for occasional liturgical events, principally confirmation. It should be noted that the stated purpose of the plan is “for reconciliation”.
(4) Seek to negotiate a redirection of diocesan apportionment monies. This is also a step that a number of parishes have taken, again involving negotiation with the bishop and other diocesan authorities. For a number of years the Episcopal Church has given support to a variety of questionable projects and causes. The current multi-million dollar litigations against parishes choosing to leave the denomination is a scandal and as such, insupportable. To allow for some choice as to the designation of apportionment funds, be it on an individual or a parish-wide level, may be seen as an act of responsible stewardship, as well as a grass-roots level opportunity to express opposition to the church’s actions.
(5) Plan to align with the “new province” when it forms. At this stage it appears unlikely that a new province on North American soil will receive broad endorsement from the rest of the Communion. The six GAFCon primates have for the time being held back from recognizing such an entity, perhaps until after the meeting of all the primates early in 2009. In a few days’ time Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori will make the unprecedented move of calling upon the Episcopal Church House of Bishops to depose Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh, without any previous inhibition, without en ecclesiastical trial, and following canonically questionable procedures. Within a month the convention of the Diocese of Pittsburgh will vote on whether to transfer its out of the Episcopal Church and temporarily into the Province of the Southern Cone, joining the Diocese of San Joaquin, and likely to be followed by the Dioceses of Forth Worth and Quincy. This means that within a month or so the whole ball field will have altered, in that, technically at least, there is the possibility of the establishment of such a province. As to what this will lead to in terms of the wider Communion and of the barrage of legal suits that undoubtedly will be launched we can only speculate. Whatever the case, it will be a far cry from Ephraim Radner’s “orderly separation”.
I think we at Messiah need to take a careful look at each of these potential avenues. At this time I cannot tell exactly where that may lead, as I do not know what the future holds. My hope is only that we would do it within the framework of, and out of a deep commitment to, the “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church”.
We stand at a crossroads. Decisions being made on a global level will have repercussions that may reach down through generations. Although on a smaller scale, the same holds true on the local level as well. How do we remain part of a church that, though necessarily flawed and incomplete, still manages to exhibit the creedal characteristics of unity, holiness, catholicity, and apostolicity?
The final paragraph of the Windsor Report, now four years in the past, is both prophetic and sobering:
There remains a very real danger that we will not choose to walk together. Should the call to halt and find ways of continuing in our present communion not be heeded, then we shall have to begin to learn to walk apart. We would much rather not speculate on actions that might need to be taken if, after acceptance by the primates, our recommendations are not implemented. However, we note that there are, in any human dispute, courses that may be followed: processes of mediation and arbitration; non-invitation to relevant representative bodies and meetings; invitation, but to observer status only; and, as an absolute last resort, withdrawal from membership. We earnestly hope that none of these will prove necessary. Our aim throughout has been to work not for division but for healing and restoration. The real challenge of the gospel is whether we live deeply enough in the love of Christ, and care sufficiently for our joint work to bring that love to the world, that we will “make every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4.3). As the primates stated in 2000, “to turn from one another would be to turn away from the Cross”, and indeed from serving the world which God loves and for which Jesus Christ died.
There is ample evidence that many in the Anglican Communion, although refusing to acknowledge it, have by their actions chosen to “walk apart”. To date none of the Instruments of Communion, including most recently the Lambeth Conference of Bishops, has been successful in counteracting the trend. It appears that we are witnessing the gradual dissolution of the Anglican Communion, in Bishop Tom Wright’s words, “like a slow-moving train wreck”.
On a pragmatic level, where does that leave us at Messiah? There are a number of options available to us. What follows are five, but no doubt there are others as well.
(1) Do nothing. We could decide simply to hang tight, keep a low profile, and hope and pray for the best, all the time seeking to hold to our distinctives and to remain a place of lively orthodoxy. I would warn that this path is neither as simple nor as straightforward as it might at first appear.
(2) Reaffirm the Windsor Report. The Vestry has already expressed its commitment to the content and recommendations of the Windsor Report. While it seems that forces within the Communion have worked together to subvert the implementation of the report, the time may not quite have come for a final pronouncement of death. The Covenant Design Group continues to meet, and it may be that there is just enough energy left among the orthodox primates and bishops to make it work. In any event, once again endorsing the Windsor Report would be a moderate (some would say minimal) statement to our bishop and diocese that we choose to remain within the mainstream of Anglicanism and oppose the theological and moral innovations of many in the Episcopal Church.
(3) Apply for Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight. In March 2004 the Episcopal Church House of Bishops opened up the option of receiving pastoral care from a bishop other than the diocesan. The plan is outlined in a document entitled, “Caring for All the Churches” A number of churches across the country—both conservative parishes in liberal dioceses and liberal parishes in conservative dioceses—have already chosen this option, with varying degrees of success. A proposal to take this step has already been brought before our own Vestry and is under consideration. Presumably the delegated bishop would be available for consultation and godly advice, and for occasional liturgical events, principally confirmation. It should be noted that the stated purpose of the plan is “for reconciliation”.
(4) Seek to negotiate a redirection of diocesan apportionment monies. This is also a step that a number of parishes have taken, again involving negotiation with the bishop and other diocesan authorities. For a number of years the Episcopal Church has given support to a variety of questionable projects and causes. The current multi-million dollar litigations against parishes choosing to leave the denomination is a scandal and as such, insupportable. To allow for some choice as to the designation of apportionment funds, be it on an individual or a parish-wide level, may be seen as an act of responsible stewardship, as well as a grass-roots level opportunity to express opposition to the church’s actions.
(5) Plan to align with the “new province” when it forms. At this stage it appears unlikely that a new province on North American soil will receive broad endorsement from the rest of the Communion. The six GAFCon primates have for the time being held back from recognizing such an entity, perhaps until after the meeting of all the primates early in 2009. In a few days’ time Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori will make the unprecedented move of calling upon the Episcopal Church House of Bishops to depose Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh, without any previous inhibition, without en ecclesiastical trial, and following canonically questionable procedures. Within a month the convention of the Diocese of Pittsburgh will vote on whether to transfer its out of the Episcopal Church and temporarily into the Province of the Southern Cone, joining the Diocese of San Joaquin, and likely to be followed by the Dioceses of Forth Worth and Quincy. This means that within a month or so the whole ball field will have altered, in that, technically at least, there is the possibility of the establishment of such a province. As to what this will lead to in terms of the wider Communion and of the barrage of legal suits that undoubtedly will be launched we can only speculate. Whatever the case, it will be a far cry from Ephraim Radner’s “orderly separation”.
I think we at Messiah need to take a careful look at each of these potential avenues. At this time I cannot tell exactly where that may lead, as I do not know what the future holds. My hope is only that we would do it within the framework of, and out of a deep commitment to, the “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church”.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Episcopal Church House of Bishops Deposes Bishop Robert Duncan
This is a very sad day for the Episcopal Church. The Living Church reports:The House of Bishops brushed aside procedural challenges and deposed Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh from the ordained ministry of The Episcopal Church Sept. 18.
The final tally was 88 yes, 35 no, with four abstentions, according to one bishop. Those results are not official, however.
Present were 128 bishops. Not present were 15 who could not attend for a variety of reasons, including the bishops of Texas who are dealing with the aftermath of Hurricane Ike. Nine did not respond and were not present, according to Episcopal News Service.
Immediately after his deposition from the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church, Bishop Duncan was welcomed into the House of Bishops of the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone, according to Presiding Bishop Gregory Venables.
“As was resolved by resolution made at the Provincial Synod in Valparaiso last November 2007, we are happy to welcome Bishop Duncan into the Province of the Southern Cone as a member of our House of Bishops, effective immediately,” Bishop Venables said. “Neither the Presiding Bishop nor the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church has any further jurisdiction over his ministry. We pray for all Anglicans in Pittsburgh as they consider their own relationship with The Episcopal Church in the coming weeks.”
While Bishop Duncan continues to believe that the deposition is unlawful, he will not challenge it prior to the end of the Diocese of Pittsburgh’s annual convention unless forced to do so by the leadership of The Episcopal Church. On Oct. 4, diocesan convention deputies will consider the second and final reading of a constitutional change that would realign the diocese with the Province of the Southern Cone.
With the passage of that constitutional change, the diocese will be free to welcome Bishop Duncan back as its bishop. In the meantime, under the diocese’s governing documents, the standing committee will serve as the diocese’s ecclesiastical authority.
“This is of course a very painful moment for Pittsburgh Episcopalians,” said the Rev. David Wilson, president of the standing committee. “The leadership of The Episcopal Church has inserted itself in a most violent manner into the affairs and governance of our diocese. While we await the decision of the diocesan convention on realignment to a different province of the Anglican Communion, we will stand firm against any further attempts by those outside our boundaries to intimidate us.”
The roll call taken at the meeting, showing how each bishop voted, is on Stand Firm. You can read letters and statements of support for Bishop Duncan here.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
A Sinking Ship?
The Episcopal Church has been likened to an ocean-going liner that is headed on a path towards shipwreck. In our case, the captain appears not only prepared to go down with the ship, but intent on herself taking the ship down. Expensive litigation, disregard for the church’s canons, and the rejection of Jesus’ own words in the gospel can only serve to further weaken and divide the church. Meanwhile many of her officers and crew are below decks puncturing the hull.
The turning radius of the Titanic as she approached the fatal iceberg on the Atlantic in 1912 was nearly three quarters of a mile. Many would agree that the good ship Episcopal is already within that radius, headed for unavoidable disaster. “We are in schism,” wrote our own bishop from the Lambeth Conference on July 30. Ephraim Radner, a member of the international Covenant Design Group of the Anglican Communion, has called for “an orderly separation”, echoing the bishop of Winchester’s comments during the Lambeth Conference.
To take the imagery further, many have let down lifeboats. The Anglican Catholic Church, the Anglican Province of America, the Charismatic Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Episcopal Church and a whole host of forty or more others (most of them small splinter groups), are made up of individuals and congregations that have departed from the Episcopal Church over the past thirty years.
Meanwhile, others have brought their own rescue vessels alongside, with the offer of taking endangered Episcopalian parishioners, congregations, and now even dioceses, into protective custody. The Anglican provinces of Rwanda, Nigeria, Uganda, Kenya, and the Southern Cone have all taken these measures over the past six years or so.
To join with either of these movements is tempting. Yet there is a difficulty. We know where the Episcopal Church is headed. Yet we cannot be certain that where either the lifeboats or the rescue vessels will take us is any better. Most of the lifeboats are likely to remain just that: small clusters of angry people who find their identity in being in opposition to the teachings of the Episcopal Church, and who will eventually sink into oblivion.
There is considerably more hope in the rescue vessels. Increasingly, they are working in synchrony, under the banner of the Common Cause Partners. In addition, the archbishops of the respective provinces have made it clear that their actions are intended to provide only a temporary sanctuary until a more permanent solution is found—in our case the establishment of a new Anglican province on North American soil.
However, there are factors that make this a very fragile convoy: differences of opinion over the role and ordination of women in the church, the issue of continuing overlapping jurisdictions within the province itself, and the question as to whether the new province will ever gain recognition throughout the Anglican Communion, to name just three. Each of these could seriously compromise the seaworthiness of the new vessel, and potentially cause it to founder.
The turning radius of the Titanic as she approached the fatal iceberg on the Atlantic in 1912 was nearly three quarters of a mile. Many would agree that the good ship Episcopal is already within that radius, headed for unavoidable disaster. “We are in schism,” wrote our own bishop from the Lambeth Conference on July 30. Ephraim Radner, a member of the international Covenant Design Group of the Anglican Communion, has called for “an orderly separation”, echoing the bishop of Winchester’s comments during the Lambeth Conference.
To take the imagery further, many have let down lifeboats. The Anglican Catholic Church, the Anglican Province of America, the Charismatic Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Episcopal Church and a whole host of forty or more others (most of them small splinter groups), are made up of individuals and congregations that have departed from the Episcopal Church over the past thirty years.
Meanwhile, others have brought their own rescue vessels alongside, with the offer of taking endangered Episcopalian parishioners, congregations, and now even dioceses, into protective custody. The Anglican provinces of Rwanda, Nigeria, Uganda, Kenya, and the Southern Cone have all taken these measures over the past six years or so.
To join with either of these movements is tempting. Yet there is a difficulty. We know where the Episcopal Church is headed. Yet we cannot be certain that where either the lifeboats or the rescue vessels will take us is any better. Most of the lifeboats are likely to remain just that: small clusters of angry people who find their identity in being in opposition to the teachings of the Episcopal Church, and who will eventually sink into oblivion.
There is considerably more hope in the rescue vessels. Increasingly, they are working in synchrony, under the banner of the Common Cause Partners. In addition, the archbishops of the respective provinces have made it clear that their actions are intended to provide only a temporary sanctuary until a more permanent solution is found—in our case the establishment of a new Anglican province on North American soil.
However, there are factors that make this a very fragile convoy: differences of opinion over the role and ordination of women in the church, the issue of continuing overlapping jurisdictions within the province itself, and the question as to whether the new province will ever gain recognition throughout the Anglican Communion, to name just three. Each of these could seriously compromise the seaworthiness of the new vessel, and potentially cause it to founder.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
The Episcopal Church and the Lambeth Quadrilateral
Tucked away on page 876 of the Episcopal Church Book of Common Prayer, following the thirty-nine Articles of Religion, there is printed a document that I believe you will not find in any other prayer book in the Anglican Communion. It is “The Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral 1886, 1888”.
Originally devised and adopted by the US House of Bishops in 1886, its four points were intended as principles that would form the basis of negotiation towards Christian unity with other church bodies. Their document was discussed and debated at the Lambeth Conference of Bishops two years later, where the following slightly revised articles adopted:
(a) The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as “containing all things necessary to salvation”, and as being the rule and ultimate standard of faith.
(b) The Apostles’ Creed, as the baptismal symbol; and the Nicene Creed, as the sufficient statement of the Christian faith.
(c) The two sacraments ordained by Christ himself—Baptism and the Supper of the Lord—ministered with unfailing use of Christ’s words of institution, and of the elements ordained by him.
(d) The historic episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called of God into the unity of his church.
Moving the clock forward one hundred twenty years, imagine if that same Episcopal Church in the United States, the very body from which the Quadrilateral arose, were applying for unity with the Anglican Communion. How would it fare?
In relation to the first article, the Episcopal Church no longer regards the Holy Scriptures as “the rule and ultimate standard of faith”, much less “the revealed Word of God” (the words proposed originally by the US House of Bishops in 1886). The now disgraced Bishop John Bennison has often been quoted as saying, “We (the church) wrote the Bible and we can rewrite it.” At the time he was saying nothing new, but simply voicing a proposition widely assumed in the Episcopal Church. At many points the Bible is being “reinterpreted” in ways that are contrary to its own meaning. In other cases it is being rejected altogether in favor of the findings of contemporary sociologists and psychologists.
As for the creeds, the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds are no longer accepted as “sufficient” (i.e., the minimum) statements of the Christian faith. John Spong, retired bishop of New Jersey has refuted virtually every article of the creeds, without ever being censured or even challenged by any of the official bodies of the Episcopal Church. Our own bishop contends that to be a Christian it is necessary only to believe in the Trinity and the incarnation. What about Jesus’ death on the cross for our salvation? What about his resurrection from the dead? How can any system of belief that does not include them (much less the other teachings embraced by the creeds) be called “sufficient”?
With respect to the two sacraments, there is increasing momentum in the Episcopal Church (again virtually unchallenged) to offer the bread and wine of the Eucharist to all, regardless of whether they have been baptized or shown any other evidence of Christian faith. This popular trend, which is becoming widespread in the name of “radical inclusivity”, robs both sacraments of their meaning.
Finally, the American church’s lack of commitment to the historic episcopate became evident in 2003, when a partnered gay man was consecrated as a bishop. It cannot be argued that this was merely a local adaptation. This act was entirely without warrant biblically, historically or ecumenically, as the firestorm that has come upon the Episcopal Church from both inside and outside the Anglican Communion gives ample evidence. Yet the Episcopal Church defends its action aggressively as a “prophetic” matter, with the arrogant expectation that the rest of the church will follow along in due time.
Thus the Episcopal Church has repeatedly demonstrated by its own actions that it is not a part of any recognizable historic Anglicanism. This has been reinforced by its staunch refusal to live by the resolutions of the Lambeth Conference of Bishops, to follow in any serious way the gracious recommendations of the Windsor Report, or to heed the repeated calls of the Primates of the Communion to draw back from its rebellious path.
Originally devised and adopted by the US House of Bishops in 1886, its four points were intended as principles that would form the basis of negotiation towards Christian unity with other church bodies. Their document was discussed and debated at the Lambeth Conference of Bishops two years later, where the following slightly revised articles adopted:
(a) The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as “containing all things necessary to salvation”, and as being the rule and ultimate standard of faith.
(b) The Apostles’ Creed, as the baptismal symbol; and the Nicene Creed, as the sufficient statement of the Christian faith.
(c) The two sacraments ordained by Christ himself—Baptism and the Supper of the Lord—ministered with unfailing use of Christ’s words of institution, and of the elements ordained by him.
(d) The historic episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called of God into the unity of his church.
Moving the clock forward one hundred twenty years, imagine if that same Episcopal Church in the United States, the very body from which the Quadrilateral arose, were applying for unity with the Anglican Communion. How would it fare?
In relation to the first article, the Episcopal Church no longer regards the Holy Scriptures as “the rule and ultimate standard of faith”, much less “the revealed Word of God” (the words proposed originally by the US House of Bishops in 1886). The now disgraced Bishop John Bennison has often been quoted as saying, “We (the church) wrote the Bible and we can rewrite it.” At the time he was saying nothing new, but simply voicing a proposition widely assumed in the Episcopal Church. At many points the Bible is being “reinterpreted” in ways that are contrary to its own meaning. In other cases it is being rejected altogether in favor of the findings of contemporary sociologists and psychologists.
As for the creeds, the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds are no longer accepted as “sufficient” (i.e., the minimum) statements of the Christian faith. John Spong, retired bishop of New Jersey has refuted virtually every article of the creeds, without ever being censured or even challenged by any of the official bodies of the Episcopal Church. Our own bishop contends that to be a Christian it is necessary only to believe in the Trinity and the incarnation. What about Jesus’ death on the cross for our salvation? What about his resurrection from the dead? How can any system of belief that does not include them (much less the other teachings embraced by the creeds) be called “sufficient”?
With respect to the two sacraments, there is increasing momentum in the Episcopal Church (again virtually unchallenged) to offer the bread and wine of the Eucharist to all, regardless of whether they have been baptized or shown any other evidence of Christian faith. This popular trend, which is becoming widespread in the name of “radical inclusivity”, robs both sacraments of their meaning.
Finally, the American church’s lack of commitment to the historic episcopate became evident in 2003, when a partnered gay man was consecrated as a bishop. It cannot be argued that this was merely a local adaptation. This act was entirely without warrant biblically, historically or ecumenically, as the firestorm that has come upon the Episcopal Church from both inside and outside the Anglican Communion gives ample evidence. Yet the Episcopal Church defends its action aggressively as a “prophetic” matter, with the arrogant expectation that the rest of the church will follow along in due time.
Thus the Episcopal Church has repeatedly demonstrated by its own actions that it is not a part of any recognizable historic Anglicanism. This has been reinforced by its staunch refusal to live by the resolutions of the Lambeth Conference of Bishops, to follow in any serious way the gracious recommendations of the Windsor Report, or to heed the repeated calls of the Primates of the Communion to draw back from its rebellious path.
Episcopal blood-letting
Here is how Julia Duin, assistant national editor/religion, The Washington Times, describes what will be happening at this week’s meeting of the Episcopal Church House of Bishops:
When Robert Duncan was elected Episcopal bishop of Pittsburgh in 1997, he was the dark horse local candidate who defeated the out-of-town contenders for a job in what used to be a quiet diocese. At the time, he was thought of as more an administrator kind of guy; far less flashy than his revered predecessor, the silver-haired Alden Hathaway.
Then in 2003, the Episcopalians OK’d the consecration of the world’s first openly gay bishop: Gene Robinson of New Hampshire and Bishop Duncan became a leader in the Network, a group of conservatives fighting to stay in the Episcopal Church but disheartened by its increasingly liberal tendencies. As those tendencies got more and more onerous, various dioceses, including Pittsburgh, announced they were considering leaving the Episcopal Church, which in Pittsburgh’s case would mean a flight of millions of dollars - $43 million is one figure being bandied about—in church assets.
Pittsburgh Episcopalians will vote Oct. 4 whether or not to leave the denomination. They are not alone. The Diocese of San Joaquin, Calif., has already left although the Episcopal Church has instituted another bishop to try to rebuild. Being that senior Episcopal bishops in California have endorsed the California’s Supreme Court's May ruling giving civil marriage status to gay unions, the San Joaquinians probably saw what was coming and decided to flee.
The Diocese of Fort Worth votes in November on whether to leave the Episcopal Church. Most are heading toward the Anglican province of the Southern Cone, a South American province headed by Greg Venables, a bishop who has taken numerous conservatives around the world under his ecclesiastical wing.
Where it gets interesting is that Presiding Episcopal Bishop Katharine Jefforts Schori has been gunning for Bishop Duncan’s ouster for almost a year. She tried to get three senior bishops—including Virginia's Peter J. Lee, to sign onto this but not all three would do so. [She has written] explaining her legal reasons for getting around this requirement to place a vote to oust Bishop Duncan on the agenda of this Thursday’s Episcopal House of Bishops meeting.
[Bishop Duncan] is refusing to attend the HOB meeting in Salt Lake City and say a vote to oust him is violating the church’s constitution and canons. One major reason is that a vote to kick out a bishop must be assented to by the majority of the church’s bishops—and it’s commonly known that a majority don’t attend the HOB meetings. Bishop Jefferts Schori says the vote shall happen nonetheless and “the discipline of the church shall not be stymied”.
If the HOB decides Bishop Duncan has “abandoned the Communion” of the Episcopal Church (that is the wording of the charge), he would be the latest of several bishops so removed. Usually most of these bishops have already removed themselves by the time there’s a vote to expel them. This time is different as Robert Duncan is still a sitting bishop.
It is my earnest hope that some of the bishops present will have the courage and integrity to vehemently oppose this action. The original article, which has links to some of the documents referenced, is here.
When Robert Duncan was elected Episcopal bishop of Pittsburgh in 1997, he was the dark horse local candidate who defeated the out-of-town contenders for a job in what used to be a quiet diocese. At the time, he was thought of as more an administrator kind of guy; far less flashy than his revered predecessor, the silver-haired Alden Hathaway.
Then in 2003, the Episcopalians OK’d the consecration of the world’s first openly gay bishop: Gene Robinson of New Hampshire and Bishop Duncan became a leader in the Network, a group of conservatives fighting to stay in the Episcopal Church but disheartened by its increasingly liberal tendencies. As those tendencies got more and more onerous, various dioceses, including Pittsburgh, announced they were considering leaving the Episcopal Church, which in Pittsburgh’s case would mean a flight of millions of dollars - $43 million is one figure being bandied about—in church assets.
Pittsburgh Episcopalians will vote Oct. 4 whether or not to leave the denomination. They are not alone. The Diocese of San Joaquin, Calif., has already left although the Episcopal Church has instituted another bishop to try to rebuild. Being that senior Episcopal bishops in California have endorsed the California’s Supreme Court's May ruling giving civil marriage status to gay unions, the San Joaquinians probably saw what was coming and decided to flee.
The Diocese of Fort Worth votes in November on whether to leave the Episcopal Church. Most are heading toward the Anglican province of the Southern Cone, a South American province headed by Greg Venables, a bishop who has taken numerous conservatives around the world under his ecclesiastical wing.
Where it gets interesting is that Presiding Episcopal Bishop Katharine Jefforts Schori has been gunning for Bishop Duncan’s ouster for almost a year. She tried to get three senior bishops—including Virginia's Peter J. Lee, to sign onto this but not all three would do so. [She has written] explaining her legal reasons for getting around this requirement to place a vote to oust Bishop Duncan on the agenda of this Thursday’s Episcopal House of Bishops meeting.
[Bishop Duncan] is refusing to attend the HOB meeting in Salt Lake City and say a vote to oust him is violating the church’s constitution and canons. One major reason is that a vote to kick out a bishop must be assented to by the majority of the church’s bishops—and it’s commonly known that a majority don’t attend the HOB meetings. Bishop Jefferts Schori says the vote shall happen nonetheless and “the discipline of the church shall not be stymied”.
If the HOB decides Bishop Duncan has “abandoned the Communion” of the Episcopal Church (that is the wording of the charge), he would be the latest of several bishops so removed. Usually most of these bishops have already removed themselves by the time there’s a vote to expel them. This time is different as Robert Duncan is still a sitting bishop.
It is my earnest hope that some of the bishops present will have the courage and integrity to vehemently oppose this action. The original article, which has links to some of the documents referenced, is here.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Cryptic Crossword Solution for 7 September
Here is my proposed solution to last Sunday’s London Times cryptic. I hope I may be able to put today’s puzzle on line later in the week.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Truthful Language and Orderly Separation
The Anglican Communion Institute published this stunning paper by Ephraim Radner yesterday:
The Anglican Communion is currently pursuing a number of activities in response to the acrimonious struggle over sexual teaching and discipline within our churches. These activities have been encouraged by the Communion’s leadership, including at the recent Lambeth Conference. I have, to various degrees, been a supporter of these activities, not least because I have trusted those who have promoted these means towards ecclesial healing. I am increasingly skeptical, however, that the way these activities have been framed – descriptively and practically – represents the true nature of our disputes.
Categories like “moratoria” and “reception” and “listening”, for instance, are now prominent elements in our strategic ecclesial discussions. Unfortunately, they no longer appear to be useful categories, in large part because they do not accurately reflect the actual relationship of expectation and possibility that the disputing parties hold, one to another and with respect to their own commitments. When one party says, while responding to the request for a “moratorium” on specific actions, “yes we will consider it; but there is no going back on our underlying commitments”; and another party says at the same time, “yes we will consider it; but only on the condition that you others give up your practical commitments”, then the very category of “moratorium” functions in very different ways in each case. Similarly, when “reception” is a “process” that seeks to discern the Christian authenticity of an innovative practice, but also does so by the very means of rooting that practice within the life of the church in different areas, the notion that discernment has a possibly restraining role to play seems practically undercut. Or when “listening” presumes an ecclesial practice even as it refuses to evaluate that practice, one is not so much listening as receiving justification ex post facto.
Indeed, the practical logic of the situation we are now in as a Communion has exposed the inadequacy of these categories, and has raised questions about the very nature of “council”, consensus, and decision-making. With this, our churches have been challenged to reconsider from the ground up whether or not we are capable of maintaining the integrity of our common life at all…
The Bishop of Winchester, the Rt. Rev. Michael Scott-Joynt, recently aroused comment when he suggested that, post-Lambeth Conference, the means for an “orderly separation” betweem Anglican churches who stand opposed to the practice of gay inclusion who do not, be devised and pursued: “I continue to see a negotiated ‘orderly separation’ as the best and most fruitful way forward for the Anglican Communion. The experience of this Lambeth Conference […] has again convinced me that the Anglican Communion cannot hold in tension convictions and practices that are incompatible, and so not patent of ‘reconciliation’, without continuing seriously to damage the life and witness of Anglican Churches”. It was this reference to “orderly separation” that struck many as significant, coming as it did, not from the bigoted reactionary that some have wrongly made him out to be, but from a bishop who has steadfastly stood for and offered witness on behalf of the imperative and blessings of ecclesial Communion among Anglicans. His admission that such an “orderly separation” may be necessary at this time is significant because, in fact, he has worked hard for unity and believes in it. It is this kind of admission that should spur us to hard thinking.
Indeed, I do not want such a separation. I pray against its demand. It is not something that I think our Lord confronts, in his own heart, with anything but sorrow. But I agree that the sheer practical dynamics of the situation we are now in may well uphold Bp. Scott-Joynt’s views. It is not so much that the Lord will weep, but that even now He is weeping…
But what shall we say of “orderly separation”? Such a separation of parties – leaving aside its shape — may be necessary, if the integrity of language, practice, formation and witness is to be maintained, even with clarity of concepts and categories restored. That separation is not to be prayed for as an end in itself; but the means needs to be soberly formulated and allowed to be used so that the firm embrace of asymmetrical logics can find its resolution in coherent lives that no longer threaten common dissolution. In fact, it could be argued that any church needs to have as part of its ecclesial polity some means within it either to resolve such asymmetrical logics or to disentangle them from its common life.
It may be that separation is not to be desired; it may be that it is not inevitable, in the sense that nothing determines its integral imposition upon the Communion, except finally individual and collective desire. But it now looks as if separation is simply necessary, not historically so much as logically and morally. A more adequate vocabulary that takes the place of “moratoria,” “reception”, “listening”, and so on makes this logical necessity plain by showing the conditions of coherence. And the survival of catholic Christianity makes plain the moral necessity of such orderly separation by demonstrating the demands of one logic over the other. It is separation that preserves Anglicanism as a Catholic form of Christianity.
Some have suggested that the Covenant and the process leading to its adoption would, of itself, if not deliberately at least as a matter of course, provide the “orderliness” by which a separation, if needed, could indeed unfold. If it is to be the Covenant and its process, this indicates that we must not fear the kind of clarity and accessible steps of implementation that would allow for such differentiation if that is indeed the end towards which the present logics turn out to be moving. This is a key realization: for if such fears drive the Covenant process, the destructive dynamics of the present situation will surely prevail. A Covenant that makes clear that diversity has its limits and attaches consequences for violation of those limits preserves Communion while holding open the possibility of reconciliation.
And if the Covenant is not to allow this, for deliberate reasons as to its purpose and shape, then some other means must be devised if the end is finally proved to be desirable. I believe that this challenge must now be accepted, even among those who have spoken clearly against any Covenant that has the capacity to disentangle our current cross-purposes: if not this, then what? If one leaves things as they are, in some belief that “this is how it must be” one has succumbed to a dumb fatalism. If one insists only on ad hoc adjustments or deals struck between dispersed individual congregations and bishops, this will end in the dissolution of communion as Catholic integrality. The alternatives of doing nothing or of positively encouraging the current of spontaneous disintegration and dissolution continue to move in the same direction: profound Christian incoherence. And in Scriptural language this is described in terms of “double-mindedness”, as James puts it, or finally, of the duplicity that comes from the failure to say “yes, yes” and “no, no”. It is a failure, as Jesus says, that “comes from the evil one” (Matthew 5:37).
I call the paper “stunning” because, as a member of the Covenant Design Committee, Dr Radner has been consistently in favor of maintaining the unity and integrity of the Anglican Communion. It seems that he is one of a growing number of moderate conservatives who are beginning to recognize that, in the current state of affairs, this may no longer be possible. You can find his whole paper here.
The Anglican Communion is currently pursuing a number of activities in response to the acrimonious struggle over sexual teaching and discipline within our churches. These activities have been encouraged by the Communion’s leadership, including at the recent Lambeth Conference. I have, to various degrees, been a supporter of these activities, not least because I have trusted those who have promoted these means towards ecclesial healing. I am increasingly skeptical, however, that the way these activities have been framed – descriptively and practically – represents the true nature of our disputes.
Categories like “moratoria” and “reception” and “listening”, for instance, are now prominent elements in our strategic ecclesial discussions. Unfortunately, they no longer appear to be useful categories, in large part because they do not accurately reflect the actual relationship of expectation and possibility that the disputing parties hold, one to another and with respect to their own commitments. When one party says, while responding to the request for a “moratorium” on specific actions, “yes we will consider it; but there is no going back on our underlying commitments”; and another party says at the same time, “yes we will consider it; but only on the condition that you others give up your practical commitments”, then the very category of “moratorium” functions in very different ways in each case. Similarly, when “reception” is a “process” that seeks to discern the Christian authenticity of an innovative practice, but also does so by the very means of rooting that practice within the life of the church in different areas, the notion that discernment has a possibly restraining role to play seems practically undercut. Or when “listening” presumes an ecclesial practice even as it refuses to evaluate that practice, one is not so much listening as receiving justification ex post facto.
Indeed, the practical logic of the situation we are now in as a Communion has exposed the inadequacy of these categories, and has raised questions about the very nature of “council”, consensus, and decision-making. With this, our churches have been challenged to reconsider from the ground up whether or not we are capable of maintaining the integrity of our common life at all…
The Bishop of Winchester, the Rt. Rev. Michael Scott-Joynt, recently aroused comment when he suggested that, post-Lambeth Conference, the means for an “orderly separation” betweem Anglican churches who stand opposed to the practice of gay inclusion who do not, be devised and pursued: “I continue to see a negotiated ‘orderly separation’ as the best and most fruitful way forward for the Anglican Communion. The experience of this Lambeth Conference […] has again convinced me that the Anglican Communion cannot hold in tension convictions and practices that are incompatible, and so not patent of ‘reconciliation’, without continuing seriously to damage the life and witness of Anglican Churches”. It was this reference to “orderly separation” that struck many as significant, coming as it did, not from the bigoted reactionary that some have wrongly made him out to be, but from a bishop who has steadfastly stood for and offered witness on behalf of the imperative and blessings of ecclesial Communion among Anglicans. His admission that such an “orderly separation” may be necessary at this time is significant because, in fact, he has worked hard for unity and believes in it. It is this kind of admission that should spur us to hard thinking.
Indeed, I do not want such a separation. I pray against its demand. It is not something that I think our Lord confronts, in his own heart, with anything but sorrow. But I agree that the sheer practical dynamics of the situation we are now in may well uphold Bp. Scott-Joynt’s views. It is not so much that the Lord will weep, but that even now He is weeping…
But what shall we say of “orderly separation”? Such a separation of parties – leaving aside its shape — may be necessary, if the integrity of language, practice, formation and witness is to be maintained, even with clarity of concepts and categories restored. That separation is not to be prayed for as an end in itself; but the means needs to be soberly formulated and allowed to be used so that the firm embrace of asymmetrical logics can find its resolution in coherent lives that no longer threaten common dissolution. In fact, it could be argued that any church needs to have as part of its ecclesial polity some means within it either to resolve such asymmetrical logics or to disentangle them from its common life.
It may be that separation is not to be desired; it may be that it is not inevitable, in the sense that nothing determines its integral imposition upon the Communion, except finally individual and collective desire. But it now looks as if separation is simply necessary, not historically so much as logically and morally. A more adequate vocabulary that takes the place of “moratoria,” “reception”, “listening”, and so on makes this logical necessity plain by showing the conditions of coherence. And the survival of catholic Christianity makes plain the moral necessity of such orderly separation by demonstrating the demands of one logic over the other. It is separation that preserves Anglicanism as a Catholic form of Christianity.
Some have suggested that the Covenant and the process leading to its adoption would, of itself, if not deliberately at least as a matter of course, provide the “orderliness” by which a separation, if needed, could indeed unfold. If it is to be the Covenant and its process, this indicates that we must not fear the kind of clarity and accessible steps of implementation that would allow for such differentiation if that is indeed the end towards which the present logics turn out to be moving. This is a key realization: for if such fears drive the Covenant process, the destructive dynamics of the present situation will surely prevail. A Covenant that makes clear that diversity has its limits and attaches consequences for violation of those limits preserves Communion while holding open the possibility of reconciliation.
And if the Covenant is not to allow this, for deliberate reasons as to its purpose and shape, then some other means must be devised if the end is finally proved to be desirable. I believe that this challenge must now be accepted, even among those who have spoken clearly against any Covenant that has the capacity to disentangle our current cross-purposes: if not this, then what? If one leaves things as they are, in some belief that “this is how it must be” one has succumbed to a dumb fatalism. If one insists only on ad hoc adjustments or deals struck between dispersed individual congregations and bishops, this will end in the dissolution of communion as Catholic integrality. The alternatives of doing nothing or of positively encouraging the current of spontaneous disintegration and dissolution continue to move in the same direction: profound Christian incoherence. And in Scriptural language this is described in terms of “double-mindedness”, as James puts it, or finally, of the duplicity that comes from the failure to say “yes, yes” and “no, no”. It is a failure, as Jesus says, that “comes from the evil one” (Matthew 5:37).
I call the paper “stunning” because, as a member of the Covenant Design Committee, Dr Radner has been consistently in favor of maintaining the unity and integrity of the Anglican Communion. It seems that he is one of a growing number of moderate conservatives who are beginning to recognize that, in the current state of affairs, this may no longer be possible. You can find his whole paper here.
Sunday, September 7, 2008
London Times Cryptic Crossword for 7 September
Here is this week’s Sunday cryptic crossword from the London Times. Click on it to come up with the full-sized version.
Cryptic Crossword Solution for 31 August
Here is my solution to last week’s Sunday London Times cryptic crossword puzzle:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
