From a Religious News Service story:

Jefferts Schori’s rehashing of Anglican history may seem innocuous to outside observers, said church historian Diana Butler Bass, but her strong defense of democratic Anglicanism is a “call to arms.”

“Those are fighting words,” Butler Bass said. “She’s saying, `this is our tradition and you’re violating it.’ She is accusing Williams of being an imperialist.”

In essence, Williams and Jefferts Schori are having a very old argument over local autonomy and central authority, Butler Bass said—two extreme and perhaps irreconcilable interpretations of Anglicanism.

“He’s trying to find coherent Anglican identity and enforce it in a top-down way, and she’s saying we’ve always been democratic, local, grassroots.”

I find the use of the word “local” here to be quite peculiar. Classically, in an episcopal hierarchy, is not the bishop (and his diocese) the “local” church? Doesn’t her argument imply that the dissident dioceses are entirely within their rights to secede from the imperium of the American national church?

Charles:

Jefferts Schori firmly rejected the push to centralize power and discipline, saying that Anglicanism, and the Episcopal Church, were founded by Christians who wished to escape the strong hand of an established hierarchy.

I also noted this comment from the news report.  Granted this isn’t a direct quote from her, but it does seem interesting that she trumpets the “heh, heh, ho, ho, hierarchy has got to go” line when she is subject to someone else’s hierarchy, but is quite keen to trumpet the “you must obey the hierarchy, no matter what it says” line in her legal arguments in the courts, when it comes to other people being subject to HER hierarchy.

Thus, it seems that KJS prefers the “no hierarchy, local, grassroots, democratic” polity when she doesn’t have the power to control the hierarchy.  But when she DOES have the power to control the hierarchy, then “the strong hand of an established hierarchy” is not to be escaped and there is no room for “democratic, local, grassroots.”

Well, this is definitely one of the stickiest wickets in Anglican polity. To the degree that the colonial language translates into the perception of the USA as an ex-colony, she simply plays into the hands of the ACNA-ites who are in rebellion against her. Behind that is the original Anglican rebellion against Rome. It’s too much to hope for a consistent theory of which rebellions are necessary/licit, but the Official reliance on a constitutional and canonical defense of the present litigious attack on the schismatics is all too readily dismissed as also outdated and even irreligious.

Charles, your self-righteousness against us “schismatics” has the tone of far too many comments on this site.  As a “schismatic” I still don’t understand how staying in an apostate and heretical non-church that is walking apart from the Anglican Communion is taking the high road.  Nor do I understand the need on a site that is dedicated to this path why it is necessary to label others in such a pejorative manner.  I would think that the weight of the majority viewpoint here is sufficient for you and others to take a more charitable line with those of us who likely agree with you on much more than many of your co-religionists do in pecusa.

Scholars will look back on these letters in 150 years and say, `This is it. This is when it all went away,’” Butler Bass said. “The Anglican Communion is not going to make it.

That is what I would call a wishful thinking prophesy on her part. Additionally, I’m not sure those two letters signal the climactic clash.

Bass’s little quip is so juvenile.  To view Rowan’s letter (that actually enforces consequences) as imperialistic is utter nonsense.  The same “democratic” way she advocates has been tried by those who departed, and they got a fairly imperialistic squash from KJS.  Schism, whether from the right or the left, is wrong—plain and simple.

Tony, you have tripped over “schismatics” and perhaps missed the point of the sentence. I am not afraid of the word as some are; I think we as Anglicans have to admit that we do originate in schism from the Roman church. Among all the other issues, we really do have to grapple with what does and does not justify division.

Also, as far as offensive language is concerned, calling ECUSA “an apostate and heretical non-church” is far more inflammatory than acknowledging the reality that ACNA, AMiA, and the continuers are in schism from it. “Heretical”: I can deal with that; “apostate” is an exaggeration beyond justification. Even some of the most muzzy-headed crypto-Unitarians I would hesitate to term “apostate”, and I categorically deny that the average pew-sitter could be called “apostate”. “Non-church” is just empty rhetoric. The epithets positively invite the ECUSA hierarchy to refer to ACNA as a “heretical, schismatic non-church”, perhaps with better justification. I cannot see how this contributes positively to discourse.

The issue remains that when I ask people about Anglican polity, each side gives an answer that justifies what they are doing; it’s not hard to draw the conclusion that the politics of separation is the determining factor. My personal problem is that the chief antagonists—815 on one side and the ACNA leadership on the other, with the continuers as unindicted co-conspirators, as it were—are both possessed of a sense of personal autonomy that gives me pause.

Charles, I don’t have a problem necessarily with your using the word “schismatic.”  I would prefer that you use it correctly.  For example, I am a CANA priest with holy orders in good standing under the Province of Nigeria.  Last time I checked the Province of Nigeria is in communion with the see of Canterbury.  As you know, several of the other ACNA entities have similar arrangements.  You may not like it, but it does appear that those of us who have those ties are part of the Anglican Communion and not in schism from it.

On the other hand we have pecusa which has most recently been recognized as having chosen to walk apart from the Anglican Communion and has received what I would term a mild discipline for it.  As for my description of pecusa, if you will check the Articles of Religion I think that you will find that pecusa does not meet the criteria of a church.  I use the words apostate and heretical in the sense that Thomas Oden defines them in his book, The Rebirth of Orthodoxy.  I find his definitions to be reasonable and I’d give them here except that the book is at the office.

Non-church is not just rhetorical; again, if you will look at how the AoR defines the church…  The average muddle-headed pew sitter is not the criteria - the criteria is what is taught and what is practiced.

As I have said numerous times on this site, I do not believe that polity is the primary issue in the current crisis in Anglicanism nor is it of primary importance for the Church. The gospel is of primary importance.  As for polity, pecusa makes it up as she goes along.  As for the Anglican Communion, part of the issues regarding the current crisis is to come to some sort of conclusion as to how the provinces relate to one another and the Instruments of Unity/Communion.  That is still an open question.

ACNA cannot be considered heretical since ACNA believes and teaches the essential doctrines of the Church, is not on a trail of apostasy, and does not practice that which the Church has deemed sinful and abhorrent.  pecusa can say anything she wishes about the ACNA (and probably will).  The fact is that the ACNA is already recognized by primates of the Anglican Communion that represent over 80% of the communicants of the AC.  pecusa is in the process of being delegitimated by the AC.

I find it very strange that you find “personal autonomy” in the actions of CANA, the AMIA, etc. receiving emergency pastoral support from other provinces of the Anglican Communion.

I would think that those who are orthodox and believe in an inside strategy along with those of us who have chosen to depart pecusa and remain in the Anglican Communion could work together.  However, when someone who chooses to remain within pecusa uses words like schismatic for those of us who have left, it does make it more difficult. I can also understand the feelings of those inside when others point out that pecusa has departed from the marks of the Church.  I don’t believe that those who manage this site are heretical or apostate, but I do believe it is clear that pecusa has chosen an apostate path and has also chosen to accept and promote doctrine that is “other than” the teachings of the Church.

Tony, that your church has united itself with another does not mean it is not in schism from where it came from, and never mind the polity of parishes and dioceses seeking out congenial dioceses and churches. Abandoning a church which you cannot live with may not be ultimately wrong, but the division which it creates is inarguably real. And I’m quite willing to have you call it “heretical”, but again you are playing a game of polity in which I cannot participate. I am willing to say, “this is heresy which I cannot live with, which my priest cannot live with, which my bishop cannot live with, which my church cannot live with.” But we must all live with some heresy (yes, I am Protestant, sorry), so I’m extremely reluctant to start drawing lines and say, “cross this and you are no longer a church,” especially when those lines are drawn on the basis of moral theology. On that point every church has been very badly sinful.

Saying that you can get “emergency pastoral support from other provinces” is a political claim.

The difficulty here for me is your denial that you are in any kind of schism, and I am not happy with your solution of saying that there’s no division between you and where you came from because there is no “there” any more. I do not see how you can say that you can work with those of us who are in the not-there because, after all, there’s nothing there, by your ecclesiology. It is at least a toss-up as to whether my reference to perhaps necessary schism is more or less offensive then you, in effect, calling me apostate. Of course, you don’t really think I am, but you are in effect saying that I have abandoned the church by staying with a not-church which you claim has abandoned Christianity.

Again, Charlie, you miss the point.  pecusa is not a church, so, for a parish or diocese to be received into communion with a viable member of the Anglican Communion is not a division in the church.  You need to read articles 19 and 20. This would be along with all the other articles that pecusa denies.  It’s not my ecclesiology; it is the ecclesiology of the Anglican Communion as stated in one of the foundational doctrinal statements of the AC.  We have broken away, if you insist on this language, from apostasy and heresy, which is what Christians are supposed to do according to the New Testament.

Tony, I have just read the articles in question, and I am not surprised to find that they do not specifically say what you are saying. Indeed, the famous final clause of Article 19 would by my reading argue against the theory you press here. My point is that that my standard for declaring something to be no-longer-a-church (for it is necessary, for all those clerics who travel from one to another, that it once had been a church with authority to ordain them) is too high to be recognized in the current crisis. That a church be where “faithful men” congregate, that it preach the “pure word of God”, that “Sacraments be duly ministered”: all of these are things that all churches fail to do, to some greater or lesser degree. Also, I think you would find plenty of not-crazy-radical Episcopal clerics who would state that it is you who do not preach the pure word of God.

And you have very specifically repeated the portion of your argument that implies that you cannot work with me or any of the clerics here who remain in ECUSA—because there is nothing to work on. I do not see what else I can do within your scheme except throw in the towel where I am and look for an ACNA parish.

If TEC is not a church, then why bother hanging around messaging on a thread about TEC?  It is a kindness that no one here hasn’t already said, “Shake the dust off your feet and be done with it.”  I would rather that people of the “TEC-is-Babylon, come out from her” camp would at least mind their own business if they feel they can no longer stay and proclaim the Gospel to her.  But remember, if you can’t minister to a religious-minded secularist in TEC, don’t expect to be able to minister to the worldly-minded secularists that are proliferating in our postmodern, post-Christian culture.

Charlie, did you miss the part of the true Word being preached?  Did you also miss in the next article the part about doing nothing contrary to Scripture?  Was it the Articles of Religion that you read? 

XIX. Of the Church.
The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ’s ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.

As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred, so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith.

Yes, Charlie, churches do err, and when they so intentionally stray from orthodox teaching they are tossed out as the Anglican Communion is in the process of doing right now.  How is that contrary to what I have said?

I wouldn’t be surprised to find many clergy in pecusa who would say that I don’t preach the Word of God. So what exactly does that prove? 

I still maintain relationships with priests in TEC, including a number in the Diocese of Albany, so you are wrong on this score as well.  If God has given you work to do in pecusa, do it, but be honest about the organization you serve.

Lenny, as I have stated previously, I would hope that those who practice what has been called the inside strategy and those of us who have left pecusa could find ways to support one another.  It is a kindness that those who run this site are good-hearted folks.  What you would rather really isn’t the issue, is it?

Tony, to call TEC a “non-church” is in essence to demean those who remain.  I would favor cooperation, but a mindset that cannot abide TEC failings with long-suffering enough to recognize that the broad brushstroke with which you paint TEC to be a non-Christian entity AS A WHOLE puts a significant crimp in those ideals being realized.  Just because certain cooks in a restaurant serve up bad food does not warrant calling it a carpet store.  If you don’t want to eat there, fine.  But for the good cooks who still work there, show some respect.

Tony, please. In your rhetorical exuberance you have completely passed over my response. I do not accept the principle that I have to abandon any church where I find myself in some theological disagreement. It seems to me that this is what you are demanding, after all. I do not believe that any church is so pure in its teaching, nor so true to scripture, as to not merit some condemnation according to the standard given. The church of Rome errs, and the churches of Antioch and of Constantinople and of Moscow err, and the Church of England errs, and those also of Nigeria, and of Uganda, and so on and so forth. The churches of ACNA also err, as do those bound to the Affirmation of St. Louis. And so do those of Geneva, and of Wheaton, Illinois, and so forth. The search for the error-free church leads into ecclesiological craziness, as I often see in the serial Cyprianism of many Protestant converts to Orthodoxy.

You are trying to argue that you, personally, are without sin in this matter. I distrust such arguments to the point of essentially rejecting them out of hand. I think it is far safer to do no more than argue that one has taken the less sinful path. That is why I persist in using the word “schism”: I am not willing to so boldly claim that the separation is without harm.

I am not surprised that you maintain relationships with priests in the Episcopal Church. It seems to me, though, that those relationships are made possible by an inconsistency in your position, because, if they are in a non-church, then they are non-priests acting out non-sacraments.

Lenny, I don’t intend to demean any Christians who remain in pecusa.  pecusa failings, as you call them, are what the Windsor Report calls walking apart.  It has been years since the WR was written, and now, finally, discipline (which is a mark of the church according to reformation standards) is finally being applied.  I would compare pecusa to the U.C.C - there are Christians in the UCC and there are godly pastors in the UCC, but as a whole the UCC is apostate and heretical.

Charlie, you, like Fr. Clavier, are minimizing what pecusa has done to the Anglican Communion.  The issue is not “some theological disagreement;”  the issue is profound theological disagreement.  Your argument that I set the standards for purity is silly.  The theological disagreement with pecusa is so profound in the AC that the majority of the AC primates have declared themselves in impaired communion or no communion with pecusa. 

As for priests in pecusa, I have relationships with clergy in the UCC also.  It seems to me that in this era of denominations it would be good that all of us have relationships with all other Christians as much as this is possible.