Forums

A Tale of Elephants and the Mouse: Presbyterians, 10-A, and the World Church

2011-07-16T18:34:02-05:00

The recent decision to change our ordination standards is a rejection of Scripture and tradition as understood by more than one billion Roman Catholics. It is also an offense to more than 300 million Eastern Orthodox in their various communities in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and around the globe.

This sounds vaguely familar - nice to see another global-minded perspective about a national church (in this case the PCUSA).

Read the whole thing here.

The Anglican Covenant: Why a ‘Yes’ Vote is Significant

2010-11-24T15:06:40-05:00

As General Synod approaches its crucial vote on the Anglican covenant, recent discussions have revealed that there are at least three significant perspectives at work in the debate on the covenant and that there are some important differences between them which have not been explicitly articulated. Broadly speaking there are (1) those who, though unhappy with elements of the final text, are supportive of the covenant, (2) those who are against it and whose views are represented on the left by Inclusive Church and Modern Church and (3) those who are against it (though appear to be proposing to abstain in the Synod vote) on the right from a more conservative/GAFCON perspective. What are the reasons for the differences? In the light of the responses from Jonathan Clatworthy and Chris Sugden and Vinay Samuel to pieces I’ve written engaging with both the alternative perspectives (here and here) I believe there are three main areas to consider.

Text, Context, and Practice

In his response from the Modern Church perspective, Jonathan Clatworthy claims that although they have read the text – ‘we judge it in the light of its potential. What matters is not how it describes itself, but how it could be used once it was in place’. Thus, when he disagrees with me he notes that ‘in each case he [Goddard] focuses on what the Covenant says, while we focus on how it could be used’. This is clearly an important difference in approach. The problem is that the IC/MCU focus on ‘how it could be used’ at times almost appears to become one of ‘it doesn’t really matter what the covenant says’. There has, for example, been no retraction of the bold but false statements in the original advertisement even if they are now sometimes being more carefully phrased.
More seriously, as section 4 is largely procedural, how it will be used in practice will depend on who participates in the covenant. It is noteworthy that opponents and critics on both left and right are not approaching it with hope and vision and as an opportunity to shape the future. Their interpretation is driven instead by fear, anxiety and distrust. Rather than asking how their vision of Anglicanism can find a place through the covenant, each side assumes that ‘how it could be used’ is only to favour those they oppose – GAFCON see it as leading to open-ended discussion and listening with no discipline, IC/MCU see it as leading to a centralised conservative veto on all developments and silencing of minorities. Cases which depend on limited concern with how the covenant describes itself and then claim to focus on its practice but project onto it their anxieties and animosities in order to undermine it and stir up conflict are difficult to receive as the work of the Spirit of Christ and the God of peace.
There are, however, also substantive disagreements and these fall into two connected areas – how we understand autonomy and interdependence (mainly the concern of the left) and how we distinguish essentials and adiaphora (mainly the concern of the right).

Autonomy and interdependence

Jonathan Clatworthy is quite clear that their opposition stems from their opposition to the Windsor Report and his consistency in opposition to the Windsor and covenant processes as they have developed cannot be doubted. Although dressed up in terms of rejecting Windsor’s response to TEC, this is a more fundamental rejection of its whole vision of life in communion. The IC/MCU stance is one in favour of unrestricted autonomy, hence what many heard as a ‘little Englander’ tone in its initial ad. From this perspective, anything which in any way expresses our interdependence and so could in any sense limit our autonomy – even though there are no legal limits - is smeared as ‘centralisation’. There is on this vision no place for any regard for the wider Communion – each must do what they believe is right in their own eyes without attention to anyone else and everyone else must simply accept others’ decisions.

It is, therefore, not simply that the covenant might be used by GAFCON-ites to secure their agenda. The ‘independent island’ mentality is so strongly held that when I asked whether they could not welcome a structure that could, in principle, recognise same-sex blessings as a faithful Anglican development (just as ACC did in relation to women’s ordination in 1971), the response was ‘Such a move would certainly not make Anglicanism more inclusive. It would mean a massive reduction of freedom: instead of being free to decide either way, provinces would depend on being given permission’. So the very structure of seeking a common mind and co-ordinating discernment is rejected as ‘a massive reduction of freedom’. The vision embedded in their critique is one which breaks with how we have worked in the past and how we have to work in our interconnected contemporary world where ‘relational consequences’ will follow with or without the covenant. It represents an ecclesial form of individualistic libertarianism – ‘my church must be free to do whatever it wishes with no ‘interference’ of any form from outside its jurisdiction’. Such a vision is incompatible with a claim to catholicity and a sense of belonging together in the body of Christ.
In contrast, the covenant offers a biblical and traditional Anglican vision of what it means to be part of God’s people that holds together both a proper autonomy and our interdependence as members together in the body of Christ. It does so without infringing legal provincial autonomy but by providing what we currently lack – an orderly pattern of co-ordinating and expressing interdependence and mutual loyalty and responsibility. Even though it is not perfect, to reject it on the basis of IC/MCU’s critique is to abandon any claim to be an ecclesial communion, ‘a fellowship, within the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church…bound together not by a central legislative and executive authority, but by mutual loyalty sustained through the common counsel of the bishops in conference’ (Lambeth Conference 1930, Resolution 49 cf Anglican Covenant 3.1.2).

Essentials and adiaphora

The central concern from the right is focussed on another important issue – the distinction between essential (or first order) matters and adiaphora, matters of indifference. The left seem to have little or no place for this as even if there are essentials it appears they must never be stated as such for in doing so we fix what must be open to change. So Clatworthy writes, ‘the contents of Sections 1-3 would initially be accepted as a description of Anglicanism, but as soon as the Covenant was in force they would turn into a criterion of Anglicanism. Even if the authors of the text are right to think it accurately expresses what Anglicans actually believe, once the provinces have signed up to it it will then become possible to tell people that if they want to count as Anglicans they will have to believe it’. It seems that not only does the left believe we need to be free from any external constraints – the inviolability of autonomy-as-independence - we must also be free from the constraints of any statement of what we believe as Anglicans.

The right in contrast are concerned that the covenant does not have enough essential truths explicitly stated and requiring adherence. They appear to believe that the distinction between these is always self-evident and are concerned that anyone who suggests otherwise is seeking to diminish the core of essentials and make some of them – clearly sexual ethics is at the front of their minds – into matters of indifference. One guesses that the essentials are most clearly expressed today in the Jerusalem Declaration.

This approach does not do justice to the substantive and well-founded statement of common faith in section 1 of the covenant. It also fails to recognise that in a communion of churches we need to have some way to discern together which category any action or proposed action falls into and how to respond to any departure from an essential or relational difficulties arising from divergence in matters indifferent. Finally, it does not address the reality that no matter how specific we are able to get in the articulation of core belief and practice this must be interpreted, applied and sometimes revised, and that cannot be done by simple reference to the agreed confession. Their alternative - which appears to involve bringing together a self-selected sub-set of ‘like-minded’ people within the current Communion to set and police boundaries and to trust that it is sufficient to state ‘we acknowledge freedom in secondary matters. We pledge to work together to seek the mind of Christ on issues that divide us’ (Jerusalem Declaration 12) – must address these concerns if it is to be credible and gain wider support.

In contrast, the covenant offers a clear statement of Anglican faith and order as we have received it in the Communion. It then articulates the disciplined patterns of life and structures of communication and mutual accountability through which we can discern which differences that arise among us are differences that matter and which are indeed matters indifferent. This cannot be something left to everyone to decide on their own (the left’s vision) but neither can it be imposed on everyone by one small sub-group (the danger in the right’s vision). It has to be a genuinely corporate seeking the mind of Christ together through reasoned discussion rooted in Scripture and tradition by those committed to a wider vision – articulated in the covenant – of our shared faith, mission and life together.

Which future for Anglicanism?

The danger in the current situation is that arguments over the details of the covenant text or how the covenant might be used are distracting us from central theological and ecclesiological questions which lie at the heart of the vision of our life together articulated in the covenant. Those rejecting the covenant have not, in their critiques, set out any credible theological and practical alternative either of a vision of our life as a fellowship of churches or of what we should do now given the reality of our fractured but still much treasured communion. Indeed, Jonathan Clatworthy claims ‘Those who oppose a change do not normally feel obliged to propose a different change’ while Chris Sugden and Vinay Samuel simply claim we need ‘to recognise the role that the Jerusalem Declaration could play’. More seriously, although never clearly articulated or justified, behind their critiques are understandings on some key theological areas addressed by the covenant which are seriously flawed.

Jonathan Clatworthy ends his response by claiming that recent controversies and ethical and theological disagreement ‘should be resolved by patient, informed ethical and theological dialogue, not by ecclesiastical power politics and threats of exclusion’. That will require scrutiny not only of the covenant but of the arguments and alternatives of those rejecting it from polar opposite and incompatible perspectives. We need to hear and weigh not just the criticisms of the proposed covenant but the alternative proposals of those who are currently challenging the covenant’s way forward.

The only way to allow the Church of England – and perhaps the wider Communion - to engage in ‘patient, informed ethical and theological dialogue’ about this crucial issue is to vote for the motion in Synod. This makes no binding commitment but allows diocesan synods and ongoing debate in other arenas to inform Synod’s final decision in 2012. To vote against or to abstain suddenly puts into reverse the general support given to the Windsor and covenant processes by the Church of England and its General Synod and makes the Archbishop of Canterbury’s already difficult calling well-nigh impossible. Anything but a ‘yes’ vote is, in short, to engage in ‘ecclesiastical power politics’ and, far from being inclusive, excludes much of the church from further informed discussion and discernment about how we should live together in future.

View the original post

The Hitchens Transcript: The complete interview between the renowned atheist Christopher Hitchens and Unitarian minister Marilyn Sewell

2010-11-05T15:43:31-05:00

Interesting interview, especially this interchange:

Marilyn Sewell:
The religion you cite in your book is generally the fundamentalist faith of various kinds. I’m a liberal Christian, and I don’t take the stories from the scripture literally. I don’t believe in the doctrine of atonement (that Jesus died for our sins, for example). Do you make and distinction between fundamentalist faith and liberal religion?

Christopher Hitchens:
I would say that if you don’t believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ and Messiah, and that he rose again from the dead and by his sacrifice our sins are forgiven, you’re really not in any meaningful sense a Christian.

Find the whole thing here.

What do tea baggers, big banks, and the followers of Westboro Baptist Church have in common?

2010-10-25T12:09:28-05:00

Birute Regine, writing in the Huffington Post:

When morality is defined only by individual rights then we create conditions for a culture that’s all about “me, me, me,” a dog-eat-dog world where everyone is out for themselves. Who cares about the other guy? Why should we care about the less fortunate when I had to struggle? Why should we restrain ourselves and take into account the feelings of grieving parents at a funeral, when we have the right of free speech? Why should we think twice about avaricious and inhumane business practices when we have the right to make money? It’s my right to do whatever I want as long I contort myself like Cirque de Soleil gymnast to stay within the limits of the law.

No wonder 30 percent of teens in the US are involved in bullying, either as bully or target of a bully. Look at their role models of posturing in politics, business, and religion. It’s my right to say whatever I want and never have to consider how my words or actions might impact others. Apologies, shame, admission of harm—these words are not in the self-righteous vocabulary.

Without a counterbalance to individual rights, we promulgate a care-less, careless culture that cares less about others and carelessly squanders or hoards resources because they think only of themselves.

Much, much more here.

Reflections on Benedict XVI’s Visit to Britain

2010-09-20T03:44:07-05:00

Cambridge, England,
September 20, 2010

I have spent the last few days watching the coverage of Pope Benedict XVI’s state visit to Britain. The Pope has shown extraordinary stamina for an 83-year-old, and great fortitude in the face of the negativity toward him from so many quarters. I suspect that Britain’s historic distrust of Catholicism still lurks beneath the surface.

By the end of the Saturday evening prayer vigil in Hyde Park, London, he looked utterly exhausted — but happy, and happier still the following morning when he beatified John Henry Newman in Birmingham. Perhaps the most moving moment for me, however, was when he and the Archbishop of Canterbury stood side-by-side on the steps of the high altar in Westminster Abbey and together pronounced the blessing at the end of the beautiful prayer service.

There was tension hanging in the air when he arrived, but as the days passed there was a visible thawing toward Benedict, who handled himself with grace, courtesy, and dignity. To me there has been the deepening sense that while there are huge barriers holding us apart from our brothers and sisters in Rome, there is very much more that we have in common, especially in the face of an assertive secularism.

Interestingly, there was a mingling of Anglican, Protestant, and Catholic hymnody at the gatherings, with John Newton’s “Amazing Grace” being belted out in Birmingham, while the last hymn sung at the vigil in Hyde Park was “Tell Our My Soul” by evangelical Anglican bishop Timothy Dudley-Smith. This was followed by the choir singing a well-known piece by John Rutter. It seems that not only are elements of our liturgies converging, but we praising God with many of the same songs. These may be little things, but they are evidence of two streams that want to run together despite all the difficulties.

The dark side of the Pope’s visit to Britain has been the constant reminders of the Roman Church’s child abuse scandals. The Pope constantly apologized, as indeed he should, but for his detractors that is not enough. While the activities of a tiny minority of sick priests is detestable in the extreme, these sins should be measured alongside the extraordinary ways in which Roman Catholics in Britain have served the poor and needy, provided education, and stood firm in times of need — all in the midst of proclaiming the love of Christ. Indeed, my own granddaughter is being educated at a Roman Catholic elementary school not far from Newman’s Oratory Church in Birmingham, an education that is enriched and tempered by the evangelical Anglican parish she attends on Sunday mornings!

Yet it is this dark side of the papal visit that has added ferocity to the response of the secular left and atheism toward things Christian. While the media have generally covered the Pope better than I had anticipated, opponents are still allowed to get away with things that are scurrilous, tainted by anger and viciousness. For example, on the BBC World Service the other morning a question was asked of a sophisticate of a detractor; his throwaway response that he would not deign to answer a question about “a man who wears lace and red shoes” cried out for cross-examination, but he was allowed to get away with it. While it is clear that there are wonderful people at the BBC who have treated this visit with great grace, there are others there and in the newspapers who have taken every opportunity to cast aspersions.

After having lived back here for three years I have little doubt that Europe has been disposing of its Christian heritage with a breathless rapidity. This sexual crisis in the Roman Catholic church has certainly not helped the cause of Christ, either within Catholicism or beyond for in one way or another we are all being tarred with the same brush. It is almost impossible for a holy man like Benedict to claim high ground when members of the priesthood have behaved so badly and in certain cases seem to have been let off the hook. This is perceived as an inconsistent hypocrisy that Christians should not be allowed to get away with, barring their access to that high moral ground.

In my more pessimistic moments I find myself wondering how on earth the churches are going to recover from this. Cleaning house is necessary, but the memory will be scarred for generations to come. This is just one more strike against the faith. Nothing short of a new Reformation and Counter-Reformation are called for, and at the moment it is hard to see from where that might come.

There is a sense of wrestling not against flesh and blood, but against principalities and powers whose reach seems almost limitless. This is a continent that is assertively and with glee turning its back on its spiritual and intellectual heritage in favor of the empty puffery of materialism, and a purposeless listlessness coupled with self-indulgence. In a way this crisis could not have come at a worse moment, but in the timing there might be evidence of just a glimmering of God’s providence. Could it be that the old traditions that have shaped European Christianity for so many centuries now must be deconstructed and reconstructed — but this time to enable mission and not governance/control? It is certainly the case that structures that seemed solid and immovable just a few years ago are starting to totter.

Christianity is not dead in Europe, as can be seen by the large multi-national crowds that turned out to honor the Pope, but it is certainly going through a very difficult time. Could it be that the structures with which we have lived since the Reformation are in their dying days and that not too far into the future we will see a 21st Century remaking of the churches in order that they might effectively proclaim Christ to pagans, Muslims, materialists, other religionists, and secularists alike? Already many are exploring new ways, something that could well snowball.

I would like to think we are on the verge of a new beginning, but first it is from relationships like those being forged through Benedict’s visit that residual distrust is given permission to edge toward a more cooperative fellowship. Europe is not lost to the Christian gospel, the wounds inflicted have not been mortal, but there is much to be done and prayed over in this generation if the faith focused on Jesus Christ is to begin to reassert itself in a healthy way.

Cross-posted from The Kew Continuum.
View the original post

Where have discussion and dialogue gone?

2010-08-24T02:54:30-05:00

Whatever happened to dialogue and discussion? It seems that much that passes as interchange has disappeared, with the online world being the biggest killing field. Almost everywhere you go looking for intelligent input there is little or no thoughtful response to something that has been said or been posted. An honest and astute interplay of ideas is becoming rare because instead of responding rationally people seem determined to respond viscerally, ad hominen, and with raw emotions rather than enquiring mind.

Online forums (fora?) have become settings in which moderating or dissenting voices are literally drowned out by those who shout and pontificate. Each online setting develops its own peculiar brand of political correctness, and woe betide anyone who crosses a particular line in the sand. Often these correctnesses are contrary to the original intention of the owner of the site, and they will lean heavily in one direction or another. There is in many places what can be described as a Rush Limbaugh approach to conversation: not to listen to what another is saying but to shout the so-and-so down because he or she has no right to say such things in this setting, and besides, any fool knows that their position is wrong and not worthy of serious consideration.

The result of such a quarrelsome modus operandi is animosity so that those with helpful insights on a particular subject in that setting refuse to post there any longer because, honestly, life is too short to put up with that sort of wrangling. There is a particular site that I have visited for a long, long time and will probably continue to visit because it is helps me to stay up-to-date with things that are going on, but last week I wrote the owner to say that I will no longer be contributing because I just don’t have the stomach for the bruisings I so often have been given. I am delighted to engage with people who read the materials and want to discuss them, but I am no longer willing to be treated as if I am weak in the head, apostate, someone who taken up arms against the western world.

Wherever I look, on either side of the Atlantic, there is animus being hurled around online as one adamant group takes on the other. Scurrilous things are said which people should not be allowed to get away with—but because people like me have now opted out, they do. This only makes them bolder, less reflective, and more bombastic, so the whole sorry cycle is intensified. Whatever one’s principles or presuppositions, some of the things that I have read about the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, the President of the United States, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Newt Gingrich, James Dobson, and so on, and so on, should be challenged because they are a parody of the reality. If there is such a thing as freedom of speech, and I believe there is, then individuals should not be allowed to get away with some of the things they write or say.

In a sane and ordered setting this is possible, but in one where an unyielding pack mentality prevails, the pack’s job is to pounce on anyone who strays into their little domain and questions what they hold to be precious and true. Anyone doing so reaches the point in the end where we find there is no longer any delight in banging our heads against this particular brick wall. Besides, no one is listening. The result is that creative debate does not take place, lines in the sand become concrete bunkers, and constructive dissent becomes impossible.

When I was in seminary and university in what is now the distant past we were rigorously schooled in the fundamentals of logic so that we might learn rationally to analyze an argument and respond to it in an informed and reasonable manner. It was some of the most valuable teaching I had, but in today’s forums the rules of logic and principles of rhetoric have all but disappeared. We have delineated ourselves into what are essentially two armed camps slugging things out. Moderating voices are sidelined and so the answers now HAVE to be right or wrong, black or white, left or right, liberal or conservative, traditional or progressive, and so forth, and so forth.

I am not sure that discussion in most places on the Internet as they are presently configured can be redeemed, partly because I am not sure that those who shout and holler from atop their particular soap box want to hear any other position or view than their own. They are convinced that they are right, they have the truth, and others are so wrong that alternative voices do not deserve to be heard. To function this way is to stray into very dangerous territory that will have disasterous consequences in the long term.

When this happens among Christian people then we have to examine ourselves to see if this is how we learned Christ.

View the original post

One man, one woman?

2010-01-27T19:29:18-05:00

Channel: Christian Century
Author: Philip Jenkins

Christian attitudes toward polygamy are more controversial today than they have been for many years. As Euro-American churches debate the issue of same-sex unions, African Christians attack Westerners for their moral laxity and for caving in to secular hedonism. In response, some Western liberals retort that Africans themselves need to put their own house in order. Do African churches define marriage as a sacrosanct union between one man and one woman? If so, then why do their leaders tolerate polygamous unions?

Such an argument seems to convict the most visible Christian conservatives of hypocrisy, of failing to pluck the beam from their own collective eye. Yet far from convincing Africans, such an argument illustrates a continuing global gulf on issues of sexual morality.

For many societies across Africa, polygamy is far more than a historic vestige. South Africa’s president Jacob Zuma has at least four wives, raising etiquette concerns over which one should formally take the role of first lady. So entrenched is plural marriage that Christian churches have long had to make compromises. The ancient Ethiopian church tolerated polygamy in some circumstances, despite periodic reform campaigns. After long encounters with Zulu peoples in southern Africa, the 19th-century Anglican bishop J. W. Colenso concluded that polygamy could not be eliminated in the short term. He decided that polygamy reduced promiscuity and that an official clampdown would only drive plural wives and their children from stable home settings.

Few leaders in Africa’s European-dominated churches were as sensitive as Colenso was. Most demanded that Christians end their plural marriages. This policy initially limited the impact of the so-called mission churches, while pushing believers toward the new independent congregations, the African-Initiated Churches or AICs.
View the original post

Is the Anglican Covenant Non-Anglican?

2010-01-06T17:42:59-05:00

On December 18, 2009, the long-awaited Anglican Covenant was sent to the Anglican Communion’s 38 provinces for formal consideration. The Joint Standing Committee of the Primates and the Anglican Consultative Council—now self-denominated as the “Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion” has now approved a revised Section Four.

The question on many people’s minds is, “Do we need a covenant?

Some have said that we do not. They complain, “It’s not Anglican!” What they mean, I believe, is that the whole notion of a covenant uniting and binding the whole Communion is contrary to classical Anglican ecclesiology. The argument goes something like this: the provinces of the Anglican Communion have always been independent and self-governing. Any attempt to impose a covenant that would aim to limit that independence and autonomy is simply contrary to the expansiveness and freedom of self-governance that has traditionally been characteristic of Anglicanism.

Ah, but is that a fair reading of our history? I believe not.

In this paper I will summarize the arguments in favor of calling the churches of the Anglican Communion to adopt a Covenant. Then I will address the argument that requiring the churches in the Communion to sign on to the Covenant is not in keeping with our tradition of how we order our common life as Anglicans. A fair reading of the history of the Anglican Communion will show that the aims of the proposed Covenant are in keeping with how the Communion has historically dealt with major disagreements.

The Beginning Point: Why do we need a Covenant?

Why do we need a Covenant? Here is the logical sequence.

1. First, we need a Covenant, because, in approving and actually consecrating as bishop of one who is living in an openly sexual relationship outside the bonds of traditional Holy Matrimony the Episcopal Church has unilaterally changed its teaching on sexual ethics and commended this manner of life to the worldwide Church. Dr. Rowan Williams has written that “[f]or most (though not all) Anglicans, questions about sexual ethics belonged in that category of teaching that was not up for negotiation as a result of cultural variation or social development.” (The Tablet, “Why the Anglican Communion Matters,” February 23, 2007) Dr. Williams stated a further concern that one segment of the Church really had no right to alter this part of the Christian tradition without talking to other worldwide Christian bodies.

2. Second, we need a Covenant because, as Dr. Williams wrote the Primates in his Advent 2007 letter, the Anglican Communion is held together, not by Canon Law, but by “the ability of each part of the family to recognise that other local churches have received the same faith from the apostles and are faithfully holding to it in loyalty to the One Lord incarnate who speaks in Scripture and bestows his grace in the sacraments.” In short, so that each part of the family can know and affirm that they with the others “continue in the apostles’ teaching and fellowship”.

3. Third, the Anglican Communion is currently splintering over this unilateral action by one segment of the Church. Several Provinces have declared broken or impaired communion with the Episcopal Church while some have affirmed or even applauded the American Province. In 2003, the Primates meeting at Lambeth Palace predicted this very state of affairs, saying, “This will tear the fabric of our Communion at its deepest level, and may lead to further division on this and further issues as provinces have to decide in consequence whether they can remain in communion with provinces that choose not to break communion with the Episcopal Church (USA)”. The CAPA Primates wrote in 2007, “The Anglican Communion Covenant is the one way for us to uphold our common heritage of faith while at the same time holding each one of us accountable to those teachings that have defined our life together and also guide us into the future.”

4. Fourth, what could not be known in 2003, or even 2007, was that further tears would develop even in the Episcopal Church. At present four dioceses in the American Church have left. In addition numerous other churches have separated themselves from their parent dioceses. These dioceses and congregations were constituent members of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion before the consecration of Gene Robinson. Further splintering is in the offing as the Episcopal Church has recently elected an openly practicing homosexual woman as suffragan bishop for the Diocese of Los Angeles and as “border crossings” continue unabated. Some means needs to be made to allow these former “Anglicans in good standing” to be recognizably and organically Anglican again. That means is the proposed Covenant.

5. Finally, we need a Covenant that allows our ecumenical partners—most notably the Roman Catholics and Orthodox—to be able to know who is actually authorized to speak on behalf of Anglicanism in ecumenical conversation. How can any trustworthy ecumenical agreements be had with representatives of the Anglican Communion if there is no Communion-wide consensus as to whether a certain individual or individuals actually shares the covenanted concerns of the Communion in such as way as is recognizable and accepted by all other parts of the Anglican Communion. (This is not a new concern of the present Archbishop of Canterbury; Archbishop Michael Ramsey raised this concern following his meeting with Pope Paul VI when he asked himself upon what basis did he, as Archbishop of Canterbury, represent a branch of the Church with a theology.)

But, is it consistent with traditional Anglicanism ecclesiology to have a Covenant that all churches must sign onto?

Just because the Anglican Communion may need a Covenant does not mean that calling the various churches of the Anglican Communion to adopt a Covenant is consonant with the traditional ecclesiology of Anglicanism. The Covenant could be necessary for Anglicanism, could be a workable solution, but it could also be so inconsistent with the way the Anglican Communion has traditionally ordered its common life that for the Anglican Communion to adopt the Covenant could do more damage to Anglicanism than the harm the Covenant is intended to remedy.

Anglicanism has traditionally adopted a minimalist approach to the way it governs its common life. Former Archbishop Desmond Tutu quipped about this minimalist nature of Anglican ecclesiology. Asked once what makes us Anglicans, he replied, “We meet.” He was obviously referring to the decennial meeting of the Lambeth Conference.

Some have argued that the whole Covenant process is invasive of this minimalist way of governing the Communion. They further argue that to require provinces or dioceses to sign onto the Covenant in order to be recognized as Anglican is something that we as Anglicans have never required and that now is not the time to introduce this non-Anglican innovation.

However, the reason the Anglican Communion has never resorted to a Covenant is because it has never had to. Conflicts that have threatened to destroy the unity of the Communion have been rare. And the three times before the present conflict revealed the Communion finding a way to maintain its unity by self-submission by the individual members of the Communion to the counsel of the whole.

Autonomy in Communion

The Anglican Communion has historically ordered its common life under a mantle of grace, what the Windsor Report calls “autonomy in communion.” The Windsor Report says that we are autonomous only in relation to others (within the Communion). Historically, the Anglican Communion has balanced the freedom of an individual province to govern itself with the need to be in mutual relationship with each other. When conflict has arisen between member churches of the Communion that threatened the unity of the Communion, the individual provinces have surrendered their autonomy for the sake of the unity of the Communion. Or, to put it another and probably more accurate way, the autonomy of the individual provinces was limited by the need for unity of the whole Communion.

We will now explore these previous occurrences of conflict in the life of the Communion to illustrate this principle of autonomy in communion at work. We will then show how the mutual restraint present in these first three instances has been absent in the current conflict and how the proposed Anglican Covenant provides a framework for dealing with such conflicts in a way that is in keeping with the process of mutual restraint of the various member churches of the Anglican Communion which was present in these first two challenges to the unity of the Communion.

There have been only four times in the history of the Anglican Communion when issues have threatened to disrupt or even destroy the unity of the Anglican Communion: (1) the formation of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States of America and the first American Book of Common Prayer; (2) the Colenso Affair and the calling of the First Lambeth Conference; (3) the ordination to the priesthood of Florence Li Tim-Oi in the Diocese of Hong Kong and Macao; and (4) the consecration of V. Gene Robinson as bishop of the Diocese of New Hampshire.

(1) The Formation of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States of America and the First American Book of Common Prayer

With the expansion of the British Empire came the extension of the Church of England on foreign soil. The first extension of the Church of England outside the British Isles occurred in the American colonies.

The first challenge to the faith and unity of the Church of England and the nascent Anglican Communion came with the adoption of the first American Book of Common Prayer. The War for Independence signaled the end of the authority of the Church of England over the formerly Anglican churches in the United States of America. Church leaders from the various states set about the process of organizing these Anglican churches into a new national church in conformity with the faith and church order of the Church of England but without the oath of allegiance to and prayers for the English monarch.

With the consecration of Samuel Seabury as bishop of Connecticut, the American church was able to ordain clergy for the Anglican churches in the United States. However, in accordance with historic Christian practice, the self-perpetuation of the episcopate for this church in this new country required three bishops to consecrate more bishops. With Seabury the American church had only one bishop.

At the same time, it was necessary to develop a prayer book for use in these American churches, as well as formally to establish this new American Anglican Church.

The draft version of the original American Book of Common Prayer, prepared in 1785, called for some major changes from the 1662 version of the English prayer book upon which it was modeled. Among other changes, the proposed American version called for the deletion of the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds, the removal of the phrase concerning Christ’s descent into Hell from the Apostles’ Creed, as well as alterations to the baptismal service, matrimonial office, and other similar changes.

How did bishops in England respond? Richard Peters of Philadelphia met with the archbishop of Canterbury and filed this report:
I find that we can have no Bishop till we let the prelates see what Church we have made. I think it would be prudent in our Church, to put off any material alterations till we have Bishops consecrated; if we make any substantial alterations they will be carped at by those who will make the Bishops uneasy, and so, to keep peace at home, they will refuse to meddle abroad [that is, to consecrate bishops of the church in America]. The Making of the First American Book of Common Prayer, Marion Hatchett, p. 65.

These English bishops refused to consecrate any bishops for the Church in America until the American church remedied these errors in their proposed prayer book. In effect, upon the objections of the Archbishop of Canterbury and other English bishops, all of the major revisions were abandoned in favor of conformity with the English prayer book, except for the continued omission of the Athanasian Creed.

The aim of the first drafters of the first American Book of Common Prayer was to establish a church that preserved the unity of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America with the Church of England. The words of the Preface to this prayer book state this intent: “this Church is far from intending to depart from the Church of England in any essential point of doctrine, discipline, or worship . . .”

Here we have the beginnings of what it means to be a transoceanic and worldwide Communion: the proposed innovations of the Americans to their Book of Common Prayer so departed from the English bishops’ understanding of the faith that the latter could not in good conscience consecrate bishops for the American expression of the Church of England. Because these proposed revisions would have shaped a church ostensibly consonant with the Church of England but actually departing from her in some “essential point of doctrine, discipline, or worship,” the English bishops refused to consecrate American bishops until the American church came into conformity. To use the Windsor Report language: Autonomy submitted itself to Communion.

Note Bishop Samuel Seabury’s response to some of the proposed revisions:
If we new model [revise] the government [of the Church], why not the sacraments, creeds, and doctrines of the Church? But then it would not be Christ’s Church, but our Church; and it would remain so, call it by what name we please.” One, Catholic, and Apostolic, Paul Marshall, p. 73.

I doubt that the English bishops who consecrated William White and Samuel Provoost, thus providing for the self-perpetuating succession of the episcopate in America, had any notion that they were thereby establishing the Anglican Communion. They did, however, recognize that they were doing something that was inextricably connected with the Church of England. They had withheld their consent to consecrate White and Provoost as bishops until the American Church agreed to change their proposed prayer book in order to maintain the unity of the Church.

(2) The Colenso Affair and the Calling of the First Lambeth Conference

By 1865 there were 45 English overseas dioceses and 34 American dioceses who considered themselves Anglican. In addition there were five independent provinces with enough bishops to continue their own succession. It was in this year that the Canadian bishops called for a meeting of all Anglican bishops throughout the world.

Why did they issue their call for this unprecedented meeting of bishops from all these dioceses? The presenting issue was what has come to be known as the Colenso Affair. Bishop John William Colenso, the first bishop in Southern Africa, held liberal views on polygamy, the baptism of children; he held more liberal views on sacramental theology than that held historically by Anglicans, and he wrote a commentary denying the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch.

Without going into the details here, Bishop Colenso was not invited to this first Lambeth Conference, and the discipline of Colenso by the Archbishop of Capetown was affirmed.
What came out of the first Lambeth Conference? First, a commitment to a long-term solution to challenges posed by such as the Colenso Affair by means of a strong endorsement of the synodical way of governing the Church for the sake of good order. Secondly, concern for the faith and unity of the whole Communion over the autonomy of individual bishops and churches to depart from the faith and order of the larger Communion. When the faith and unity of the Anglican Communion is at risk, those bishops, by their actions, declared that it is incumbent on the bishops, by virtue of their Office, to take whatever measures are necessary to guard the faith and unity of the Communion.

(3) The Ordination to the Priesthood of Florence Li Tim-Oi in the Diocese of Hong Kong

The Windsor Report cites the challenge to the unity of the Communion brought about by the ordination of the first woman to the priesthood, Florence Li Tim-Oi in the Diocese of Hong Kong as a clear example of the principle of autonomy in communion as a core value in the Anglican Communion.

Florence Li Tim-Oi was ordained a priest in 1944. Controversy over the ordination erupted, and Forence surrendered her license to officiate as a priest in 1946. In 1968, the Diocese of Hong Kong and Macao brought the question of women’s ordination to the priesthood to the Lambeth Conference. In Resolution 34, the Conference recommended that before any province made a final decision to ordain women to the priesthood that they should consult with and follow the advice of the Anglican Consultative Council. This was, in fact, done, and the ACC did advise that the Bishop of Hong Kong and Macao could proceed with the ordination of women in his diocese and encouraged all provinces of the Anglican Communion to continue in communion with that diocese. When Hong Kong ordained two women priests in 1971, they were officially recognized as priests of that diocese.

The Windsor Report proceeds to review the process of recognizing the consecration of women to the episcopate as another example of autonomy in communion and the cooperative nature of decision-making in the Communion. Their summary of the significance of that process for the Communion is important for our purposes:
Anglicans can understand from this story that decision-making in the Communion on serious and contentious issues has been, and can be, carried out without division, despite a measure of impairment. We need to note that the Instruments of Unity, i.e. the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference, the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates’ Meeting, were all involved in the decision-making process. Provincial autonomy was framed by Anglican interdependence on matters of deep theological concern to the whole Communion. (Windsor Report, §21)

(4) The consecration of V. Gene Robinson as Bishop of the Diocese of New Hampshire

The Anglican Communion, for much of its history, has been dominated by the Church of England and the First World provinces of the Communion. In short, the whites were the powerful and the Third World Anglicans, the non-whites, were generally silent participants and a distinct minority in the Communion. This imbalance changed with the indigenization of the Church in Africa in the mid-20th Century.

The Lambeth Conference of 1978 was the last conference of the hegemony with the whites leading the Anglican Communion. The Lambeth Conference of 1988 saw the emergence of the African provinces recognizing their numerical strength. Realizing that parts of the First World provinces of the Communion were moving beyond the traditional views of marriage and sexuality that had been historically held by the Church catholic, the bishops reported that they viewed the issues surrounding human sexuality as being “complex.” There was a need, they said, “for theological study of sexuality in such a way as to relate sexual relationships to that wholeness of human life which itself derives from God, who is the source of masculinity and femininity.” In particular, they “reaffirm[ed] heterosexuality as the scriptural norm,” and called for dispassionate study of the issue.

The Lambeth Conference of 1998 saw the attempted resolution of this conflict. It was decided, by a vote of 526-70, to pass a resolution (1.10) calling for a “listening process” but stating that “homosexual practice” is “incompatible with Scripture”.

The Episcopal Church put this mind of the Communion to the test. In 2003 it approved the consecration of Gene Robinson, who was living in a sexual relationship with a man, as bishop of New Hampshire. A hailstorm erupted throughout the Anglican Communion.

In response, Rowan Williams, the then recently enthroned Archbishop of Canterbury, called for a Commission to make recommendations that would guide the Anglican Communion to resolve the conflict brought about as a result of this consecration.

Before the consecration of Bishop Robinson, the Primates, meeting in October 2003 stated,
if his consecration proceeds, we recognise that we have reached a crucial and critical point in the life of the Anglican communion and we have had to conclude that the future of the communion itself will be put in jeopardy. In this case, the ministry of this one bishop will not be recognised by most of the Anglican world, and many provinces are likely to consider themselves to be out of communion with the Episcopal Church (USA). This will tear the fabric of our communion at its deepest level, and may lead to further division on this and further issues as provinces have to decide in consequence whether they can remain in communion with provinces that choose not to break communion with the Episcopal Church (USA).

In 2010, over six years after the consecration of Gene Robinson, this issue remains unresolved. Four dioceses of the Episcopal Church have left TEC. They have been joined by the Anglican Mission in America, established by the Anglican Church in Rwanda; and collections of churches overseen by bishops consecrated by the archbishops of Kenya, Uganda, The Southern Cone, and Nigeria; along with a number of “continuing churches” who have formed The Anglican Church in North America.

Ironically, the Episcopal Church’s General Convention, in 1991, recognized the seriousness of unilateral action in this area of human sexuality, and through its Resolution B020, it mandated a “pan-Anglican and ecumenical” consultation precisely because they “should not be resolved by the Episcopal Church on its own.” One could only wonder what might have happened had this mandate had been followed as an instance of autonomy in communion!

In terms of Communion faith and unity, the issues can be stated: will the Anglican Communion devolve into a federation of provinces, each free to develop its own theology without reference to other provinces in the Communion; free to consecrate bishops within the geographical boundaries of already existing dioceses; free to plant churches, ordain priests and deacons, perform confirmations in those already existing dioceses; some dioceses recognized by some dioceses and not by others; some bishops of some provinces recognized by the Archbishop of Canterbury and some bishops of those same provinces not recognized by the Archbishop of Canterbury? Or will the Anglican Communion be a Communion of provinces which exercise mutual submission to each other as it has throughout its history up until the present conflict?

What is different now is that the Episcopal Church, for the first time in the history of the Anglican Communion, has refused to submit itself to the counsel of the larger Communion. As long as all members of the Anglican Communion remained submitted to each other (autonomy in communion), there was no need for a Covenant. The whole Communion, through prayer, conversation, and counsel worked out its relationship cooperatively. The decision of the American Episcopal Church to proceed with the consecration of a bishop sexually active outside the bonds of holy matrimony and the cross jurisdictional consecrations and ordinations by several of the African and South American provinces have shown that parts of the Communion are no longer willing to be mutually submitted to one another when introducing innovations that threaten the faith and unity of the Communion.

The requested adoption of a Covenant for the Anglican Communion represents the mutual submission historically exhibited by the Communion in times of conflict. It is fully in keeping with the minimalist approach to the way the Communion has governed itself. In the three previous times of conflict, the party introducing the innovation submitted itself to the counsel of the larger Communion. By adopting the proposed Covenant, each church or province explicitly agrees ahead of time to life by this historic principle of mutual self-restraint for the sake of the unity of the Communion, that is, autonomy in communion.

The basic question being addressed is: what does it mean to be Anglican in such a way that the doctrine, discipline, and worship of Anglicanism is recognized throughout the Anglican Communion, as well as by our ecumenical partners?

Because there are now competing voices and conflicting opinions as to what it means to be Anglican, the Anglican Covenant has been developed, not as a way of defining doctrine, discipline, and worship rules, but by allowing the various members of the Communion to indicate their willingness to be mutually submitted to the mind of the Communion on issues that threaten the faith and unity of the Anglican Communion. As such, the Covenant represents a minimalist approach to communion and relationship of the Anglican Communion.

A Final Analogy: Grace Abused

Throughout its history, in times of conflict, the Anglican Communion has been held together by grace. This principle is represented by Archbishop Tutu’s quip that what makes us Anglicans is that we meet. We have not been held together by judicial decree, by constitutional provisions, or by an overtly confessional conformity. We have been held together by the grace of relationship.

With the consecration of Bishop Robinson, the grace of relationship was abused. The Episcopal Church was asked by the larger Communion to live by the grace of mutual self-restraint. The abuse of that grace has caused dioceses to separate themselves from The Episcopal Church; has caused lawsuits by churches in the United States against dioceses, TEC and dioceses to sue local Episcopal churches, and deacons, priests, and bishops to be deposed; and encouraged African and South American dioceses to cross jurisdictional boundaries. The normal grace-filled, mutually submissive way of ordering our common life in the Anglican Communion has failed to maintain the faith and unity of the Communion.

So, the question is, how can we as a Communion maintain our fellowship in times of conflict in a mutually submissive, grace-filled way?
Is the Covenant the best way forward for the Anglican Communion in the face of the Communion-breaking conflicts we are currently facing? Winston Churchill said of democracy, “democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”

So, I suppose we may say the same with respect to the Covenant as a way of preserving the faith and unity of the Anglican Communion. There may be a better way, but it has yet to be proposed. At this point, the alternative to the proposed Covenant process is for Anglicanism to splinter into a federation of provinces and dioceses where some bishops are recognized by some but not all, some provinces and dioceses will cooperate with some Anglican provinces and dioceses but not all, where to be Anglican has no real theological substance or consistency, just cultural artifacts of a bygone era in which, when a person is asked: “are you Anglican?” the response will be, “it depends on what you mean by ‘Anglican.’”

View the original post

Fundamentalists and the Atheists Who Love Them

2010-01-27T12:39:35-05:00

Fundamentalists and the Atheists Who Love Them
Ross Douthat, NYT

It’s true that there are plenty of stories in the Bible — including Sodom and the Flood — that line up more closely with what Dawkins wants to call the “true Christianity” of Pat Robertson’s remarks. But — and this is important — the Christian religion is not identical to the Bible. It’s a faith based on the Bible, as read in the light of reason and (or so Christians believe) under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Catholics emphasize the Church’s authority to interpret scripture, while Protestants emphasize the individual believer’s authority — but both reject the fundamentalist conceit that no interpretation is necessary, and that every passage is equally transparent and every story carries equal weight.

The whole article is here.

And the fact that Richard Dawkins and Pat Robertson both disagree tells us something, important, I think, about the symbiosis between the new atheism and fundamentalism — how deeply the new atheists are invested in the idea that a mad literalism is the truest form of any faith, and how completely they depend on outbursts from fools and fanatics to confirm their view that religion must, of necessity, be cruel, literal-minded, and intellectually embarrassing.

Eye Opening Letter from a Priest of “The Reformed Episcopal Church”

2009-12-30T17:58:27-05:00

Brothers,

I thought I would share this letter with all of you. Recently I was talking with a Priest from The Reformed Episcopal Church. The topic of this discussion was True and False converts within the church today. I just thought you might like to see his letter.
———————————————————————————————————————————————

Thanks for your encouraging letter. I am in agreement with what you stated. However, a lot of us, me included, have been misled into thinking that the church we grew up in was much better. It’s a sad fact that although the numbers of people were larger in church, and the teaching of the church was better, that the church has in fact been in decline spiritually for many more years than the last 50 years.

The Episcopal Church preached a soft Gospel that drew people since the late 1940’s and 1950’s. In the 1960’s and 1970’s we saw the culmination of the soft Gospel when people accepted the Bible and prayer taken out of school, Roe vs. Wade, and the elimination of the Blue Laws. All of this has led to the destruction of the family - God’s divine institution.

Yes, we do need to convert souls from the inside of our churches - every one of us! But, I’ve found that this goes deep into the misunderstanding that most of the people in my church think things have only been wrong for a few years.

It is impossible to convert people without the Word of God. This Sunday, “Bible Sunday,” I plan to hit hard on reading the Bible. The instant conversion of a soul cannot be sustained without daily Bible reading, study, prayer and church. I’ve found this to be the toughest battle in my ministry over the last 4 and half years. I’ve had about 8 people start reading their Bibles and the change is obvious. However, the rest of the church doesn’t have time, a willing attitude, or the desire to be changed because they’ve been led to believe going to a good church a couple or a few times a month is enough. I’m convince more than ever that this is the work of our enemy who loves the society we live in because of it’s constant busyness and ungodly behaviors that we are forced to accept, especially as some states have written laws on this behalf.

Yes, we definitely need to convert the souls of our people. But, this is not an easy thing to do. It’s much harder than it would seem because most people’s devotion to God is from 10:30 to 12 on Sunday - an attitude I’m very familiar with since that’s the way I grew up in the Episcopal Church.

If you are targeting this area of ministry, “Welcome to the Battle my dear brother in Christ.” Make no mistake this is a battle we fight every day of our lives on our knees and in our churches. I think it is a battle that every prophet has undertaken both the Old Testament and the New Testament prophets in our churches today.

I’m afraid, though, that this is a battle that will not be won in our lifetime. We do our best. We preach our best. We pray for our people. And, we have hope that God will change them and touch their lives in the way He has touched our lives. The battle will be won. It will be won in heaven. And, ultimately, that is where our hope is placed - in our Lord and in His promises. We’re just doing our best to get as many people there that the Lord places in our paths.

Have a wonderful Christmas. My prayers are with you.

In Christ,

Fr. ___________