Standing in the Gap - Sermon for Pentecost 7

“We are called to stand in the gap and that has not and will not change.”(Carol Barnwell, Communications Director, Diocese of Texas, July 2009)

Sometimes we can be very naïve in our reading of the New Testament. We read it with rose-colored lenses, thinking that there were no serious or divisive controversies in the New Testament age – at least none as serious as those which threaten to divide our churches today. Well, I have news for you: there has never been a time in church history when the Body of Christ has not been under the threat of division; and this includes the New Testament age. Today’s reading from the Book of Ephesians [2:11-22] reminds us of this.

Read in light of the controversies of the day (rather than reading it as just another theological treatise) we can begin to appreciate that, in context, this passage was an admonition of sorts. Specifically, it served as an admonition directed towards a predominantly Gentile church – i.e., a church tempted to think too highly of itself as it looked down upon those of Jewish descent, and thus a church in danger of division. The “presenting cause” (if you will) was the Law of Moses and, more specifically, the practice of circumcision which Gentile believers rejected, but which many believers of Jewish descent still regarded as a necessary rite of initiation.

By the time this letter was written, Gentile Christians no doubt outnumbered those of Jewish descent in most places, and were presumably enjoying their newfound preeminence in the Church. But here the author takes the opportunity to remind them that they were once “far off” … “without Christ and aliens from the commonwealth of Israel” … “strangers to the covenants of promise and without God in the world.” After reminding them of their former alien-status, the author proceeds to tell them that there is absolutely no basis or reason for divisions amongst Christians of different backgrounds, because “…Christ is our peace; in his flesh he has made both groups into one and has broken down the dividing wall, that is, the hostility between us.”

Once again – this week – we were made painfully aware of how divided our own Church and Communion are. (On a personal note, I tried very hard to ignore what was going on in Anaheim. However, the media and blogosphere managed to break through my self-imposed indifference to remind me of just how close the Anglican Communion actually is to dividing and separating into factions.)

True, the issues of today are very different from those of St. Paul’s day. Nevertheless, we are witnessing the same dynamics at work: people of strong convictions on both sides of serious issues alienating each other, and setting up walls of division between themselves for the sake of preeminence in the church. Somewhere along the way, we have forgotten that “Christ is our peace”; and that in his flesh he has made us one Body, by breaking down dividing walls and abolishing all of our hostilities.

I know it is natural at this point to object to what I am suggesting. After all, if this statement were true (or if it applied to OUR controversies) – i.e., if Christ really has broken down all “dividing walls” and abolished all hostilities through his flesh – then how is it that otherwise sincere Christians still find themselves so divided? Why are there differences of opinion at all? How can it be that the Church of Christ is of two minds on such important matters? I believe the answer can be boiled down to a simple distinction: The difference between “being” and “knowing;” i.e., the difference between “what we are” and “our understanding of what we are.”

Now the dirty little secret in academic circles is that philosophers and theologians have known about this distinction for a long time; indeed, they have built whole careers on it! How this distinction applies to the Body of Christ is quite simple: there is a crucial difference between “what we are in Christ” and how we understand and experience “what it means to be in Christ.” Intuitively, we all know this to be true, especially when it comes to our own personal Christian walks. For example: We so fervently believe in Christ’s victory in our lives! And yet… how difficult is it to live that life of victory? As a tenet of our faith we believe that Christ has conquered sin and death, and yet… we continue to struggle with sin and the prospect of death! Each week we drop to our knees in confession, because we believe that God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins. But if “knowing” was identical to “being,” we would never have to confess our sins because we would never sin!

Individually, we experience salvation as a process. It is process for us corporately as the Body of Christ as well. Hence, if “knowing” was identical to “being,” it would stand to reason that there would no longer be any differences in the Church. Yet as St. Paul reminds us elsewhere, what we know we know “only in part”: “Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known” (cf. 1 Corinthians 13:9, 12).

It is when one or more parties in the Church confuse “knowing” with “being” that separation and division in the Body of Christ becomes inevitable. It is only a matter of time.

Most of you know I have not always been an Episcopalian. My original ordination was in the Reformed Episcopal Church, a group that separated 136 years ago from the Episcopal Church because they could no longer tolerate differences of opinion in that denomination. However, 136 years ago the controversies were not over homosexual bishops and same-sex unions, but rather whether or not ministers should wear Eucharistic vestments … and whether candles should be placed on the altar … and whether the altar should even be called an altar (rather than a table) … and whether a priest should be called a priest! These issues seem petty and unimportant to us today; indeed, they are no longer important to the Reformed Episcopal Church! But they were important enough at the time to separate from the main body. Though the issues have changed, the underlying problem for the original Reformed Episcopalians is the same one we face today: the confusion of “knowing” with “being.”

When someone or some group insists that they alone “know” or possess the truth they are, in essence, making a claim to be the embodiment of the truth. Recent events clearly demonstrate this. On the one hand, we have the “ultra-conservatives” (for want of a better term) who have so settled the issues in their minds that no amount of potential new evidence, scientific research, or even careful consideration of and attention to pastoral needs could ever dislodge their conviction that not only do they KNOW the truth but that they themselves ARE the truth – that is, that their separate existence apart from the rest of the Anglican world embodies “true Anglicanism.”

On the other hand, what is becoming ever so clear to the rest of the Anglican Communion is that the “elites” and “social activists” in our Church are confusing American-style democratic processes with the voice and leading of the Holy Spirit, and majority voting procedures with the consensus fidelium (i.e., the consensus of the faithful). As a result, our national church ends up ignoring or belittling the legitimate concerns and consensus of the rest of the Anglican Communion, while insisting that the Anglican Communion should accept us on our terms (always under the veiled threat of withdrawing our financial support).

That’s why I’m thankful to part of the Diocese of Texas, and indeed, your priest. You may not always feel like it (and I sometimes might be negligent in telling you), but you are a gift to this diocese; and the diocese as a whole is a gift to The Episcopal Church. Why? Because, as Carol Barnwell (communication director for the diocese) recently expressed it, “We [as a diocese] are called to stand in the gap and that has not and will not change.” As your priest I am here today to remind you that this parish in particular is called to “stand in the gap” as well. I’m not telling you anything you do not already know from your own experience. We live this calling every day. We are keenly aware of the costs and the struggle. It will always be a part of our DNA.

So what does it mean to stand in the gap?

Standing in the gap means guarding and protecting that which has been received by the Church and remaining faithful to our Anglican heritage and consensus. But it also means remaining open to the guidance and prompting of the Holy Spirit, and thus perhaps to the possibility (if only hypothetical) of the emergence of a new consensus on issues that, at present, are controversial.

Standing in the gap means understanding the difference between “knowing” and “being.” It means that if we would ever hope to know the fullness of Christ we must first live into the truth that we – ALL OF THE BAPTIZED (even those with whom we disagree) – are the Body of Christ.

Standing in the gap means standing precisely where others will want to build walls of separation, walls of hostility and division, walls that Christ through his flesh tore down, and refusing to step aside or out of the way.

Standing in the gap means being called to offer ourselves as a bridge of reconciliation to those, on both sides, who cannot see beyond their own prejudices to appreciate the gifts that others of different opinions might bring to the table.

Answering Todd's Question

A continuation of the discussion that started over my letter of disaffiliation with the AAC...

Todd Granger writes:

"Simply put, no, I don't think that you've declared yourselves out of communion with the folks in the American Anglican Council. But by means of this letter - and your posting it publicly - you have differentiated yourselves from the American Anglican Council in a way that at least seems asymmetrical in terms of differentiating yourselves from the unfaithful direction of The Episcopal Church."

Okay, Todd, I think I know where you're coming from. My asking you the follow up questions was just my way of making sure you weren't suggesting some kind of Yin-Yang approach on my part was necessary to balance out the forces of good and evil...like, say, if I disaffiliated from something on the conservative side of the spectrum then I must act in a reciprocal fashion against the liberal side to keep things in balance.

Feel free to correct me where I may be misreading you. You seem to understand that it was necessary for my parish to disaffiliate from the AAC. Yet, nonetheless, you think that posting the letter publicly was a bad idea because (I presume) you think such a letter might potentially cause a rift between conservatives who should be working together. I think I also detect in your "asymmetrical" language a hint of skepticism on your part that I take the problems in TEC seriously enough, or perhaps you perceive a measure of apathy on my part to the obvious misdirections of TEC.

Well, sure, I'll concede that I'm not as venomous or knee-jerk reactive towards revisionism as are the folks over at Stand Firm (nor do I have as much time to blog as they have). But that doesn't mean I'm apathetic or that I'm only too willing to turn a blind-eye to obvious heresy. On the contrary, I am a firm supporter of the Covenant Process as the way forward for the Anglican Communion and for TEC. But this requires patience on the part of those willing to see the process through, and I suspect that this patience is what is being misunderstood by you and others as tolerance for evil.

Moreover, as a supporter of the Windsor Process I view the federalist approach of the GAFCON/FOCA/ANCA crowd not only as counterproductive to the process, but also as potentially destructive of the Anglican Communion. In fact, I view GAFCON federalism as more of a threat to the fabric of the Communion than any other challenge facing the Communion at present, including TEC's innovations. (I suspect that this is where you'll demur, but demur if you must.)

To my way of thinking, the GAFCON crowd has "disaffiliated" from the Windsor Process. In so doing, GAFCON has essentially forsaken the Communion itself. Thus any pretense of there being two parallel strategies working together towards the same ultimate goal -- one "inside" and one "outside" -- is, IMO, a total farce; and I have precious little time, and precious little patience, to pretend otherwise. So while I don't necessarily see myself as "out of communion" with the federalists, I certainly don't see myself working together with them either.

So, yes, if you detect that some of my greatest criticisms are directed towards fellow conservatives, then I take this as a fair assessment. However, I don't view this as indicative of a fundamental "asymmetry" in my approach. Indeed, it is perfectly consistent with everything I've said up to this point.

Answering Fr. Jeffrey's Questions

Despite the fact that I posted it almost two months ago, my last entry - "My Parish's Disaffilication with the ACC" - generated quite a lot of discussion of late. I thought I might see if we could continue the discussion in a new thread. My friend and former student, Fr. Jeffrey Steel, SSC entered the dialogue rather late in the game, and he has seen fit to take his old teacher to task. What follows are the questions he asked in his last response:

"Has heresy only become for you anything that is substantially denied in the Creeds?"

No, and I'm not certain where you got this idea. Certainly not from anything I have said on this blog or anywhere else. But note the distinction that I made in my last response to you between heresy and apostasy. In light of that distinction, perhaps a better question to have asked me is whether I think it possible for a church to be tolerant of heresy or even be formally in error at certain points of its teaching and STILL be regarded a true church. I think the self-evident Anglican answer to that question is: YES. This is essentially how Anglicans, since John Jewel and Richard Hooker, have regarded the Church of Rome, and in recent times, how those who deny the ordination of women somehow manage to remain in the Church of England.

"What sort of theological criteria do you use to define something as heretical?"

My theological criteria are very much like yours, I'm sure. My first appeal is to the consensus fidelium. This has been my approach for years, and is what I taught you in the classroom. In one of his responses to my earlier entry, Andy B. went so far as to issue a call for me to return to my "roots." Ironically, I've never left them.

"How far do the goal posts need to be moved before one is on another pitch?"

This is where that heresy/apostasy distinction comes in. I have stated on many occasions that something along the lines of a formal denial of the Trinity would indicate an irreversible departure from the faith and an indication that TEC was no longer a Christian church. It may not be an answer that satisfies you or Andy B., but it is an answer, and it's logically consistent with everything I have ever said on the matter.

But here's the rub: I at least have given an answer with a theological rationale. Apart from hearing the rhetoric that TEC has finally "gone too far," where are the goal posts for those who have or are anticipating leaving TEC?

Is apostasy merely a matter of how much heresy one is willing to tolerate before it becomes unbearable? Is TEC apostate because it has a gay bishop? Or because those who have left over Bishop Robinson simply cannot live in a church that has a gay bishop? Is TEC apostate because some heretical elements have gone so far as to endorse and/or authorize blessings of same sex relationships? Or is it that some simply cannot live in a church that is tolerant of those who endorse and/or authorize such blessings?

And when did/will the Church of England fall into apostasy? Over women priests? Over women bishops? Over gay priests/bishops? Over the official policy of the CoE that turns a blind eye to homosexual lay people who live in committed relationships? Over priests who undergo surgery for a sex-change? Over priests and bishops who are allowed under law to enter into "celibate" same sex unions? When? Where are your goal posts, Jeff?

+++++

NOTE TO READERS: Be sure to visit Father Jeffrey's excellent blog De Cura animarum.

My Parish's Disafiliation with the American Anglican Council

The Rt. Rev. David Anderson, President and CEO
C/o The American Anglican Council
2296 Henderson Mill Road NE
Suite 406
Atlanta, Georgia 30345-2739

Dear David,

This letter is to inform you that, after prayerful consideration, the vestry of The Episcopal Church of the -------- at its regularly scheduled meeting on February 16, 2009 voted unanimously to disaffiliate with the American Anglican Council (AAC).

Over the years, -------- parish has valued its longstanding affiliation with the AAC, as a support to its own commitment to orthodox faith and practice in The Episcopal Church and The Anglican Communion. However, certain recent actions and events have caused us to reconsider this relationship, particularly your organization’s collaboration in parish and diocesan realignment efforts, inevitably leading to the formation of the self-styled “Anglican Church in North America,” of which your organization is listed as a “founding entity.”

These efforts demonstrate that the AAC has moved substantially beyond the purposes of its original mission, and thus is no longer able to be an advocate for, or represent the interests of, parishes that are committed to remaining in The Episcopal Church and The Anglican Communion, such as --------.

We respectfully request the AAC to remove The Episcopal Church of the -------- from its list of affiliated parishes.

Sincerely yours,


The Acting Rector

Note: The names have been removed to preserve my loosely-guarded anonymity. Some of my readers might recall that a nuisance attack some months ago caused me to go semi-anonymous on this blog. It's also one of the reasons I haven't been very active of late.

A New "Province" in North America: Neither the Only Nor the Right Answer for the Communion

http://www.anglicancommunioninstitute.com/

Written by: Rev. Dr. Ephraim Radner
Tuesday, November 18th, 2008

A new “province” for North American Anglicans is now promised to be “up and running” in the next month or so. It will comprise the 3-4 dioceses that have voted to leave TEC; the associations of various congregations that have left TEC (e.g. CANA) and those started outside of TEC from departing groups; it will also include congregations and denominations within the Anglican tradition that have formed over the past decades in North America. All of these groups now form part of an association called Common Cause.

The formation of this new “province” appears to be a fait accompli. It will presumably provide formal stability for the congregations and their plants who have left TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada, as well as some kind of more easily grasped relationship with some other parts of the Anglican Communion. It is important to note, however, that such a new grouping will also not solve the problems of traditional Anglicans in North America , and that it will pose new problems to the Communion as a whole. As a member of the Covenant Design Group, committed to a particular work of providing a new framework for faithful communion life in Christ among Anglicans, I want to be clear about how the pressing forward of this new grouping within its stated terms poses some serious problems:

1. The new grouping will not, contrary to the stated claims of some of its proponents, embrace all or even most traditional Anglicans in North America. For instance, the Communion Partners group within TEC, comprises 13 dioceses as a whole, and a host of parishes and their rectors, whose total Sunday membership is upwards of 300,000. It is unlikely that these will wish to be a part of the new grouping, for some of the reasons stated below.

2. The new grouping, through some of its founding members, will continue in litigation within the secular courts for many years. This continues to constitute a sad spectacle, and is, in any case, practically and morally unfeasible for most traditional Anglicans.

3. The new grouping is, in the eyes of many, representative of diverse bodies whose theology and ecclesiology is, taken together, incoherent, and perhaps in some cases even incompatible. The argument can be made that this is no different than historic Anglican comprehensiveness as a whole; but under the circumstances of a new structural distinction and the challenges this brings, the incoherence constitutes a burden that not all traditionalists believes is prudent to assume. This warning bell has been sounded repeatedly by traditionalists.

4. There is a host of irregularities regarding ordination, representation, consent, and so on that is included among the members of this new grouping. Some of these are both understandable and inevitable under the circumstances. But they nonetheless constitute barriers for future reconciliation with other Anglican churches.

5. Will the new grouping actually be a formal “province” within the Anglican Communion, whatever name it assumes? Surely, it will be recognized by some of the GAFCON Primates. However, it will probably not be recognized at the Primates’ meeting as a whole or even by a majority of its members, and will be yet another cuase for division there. Nor will it be recognized at the ACC. Thus it threatens to be yet another wedge in the breakup of the Communion, even while there have been signs of coalescing efforts to restore the integrity of our common witness.

6. Such division on this matter among the Primates and the ACC will likely strengthen the position of TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada. They will move forward as continuing and undisciplined members of the Communion. All of this will merely hasten the demise of our common life, even among Global South churches themselves.

In the light of these clear downsides, it is unclear what is gained for Common Cause by seeking a self-styled “provincial” status.

Gafcon leaders dismiss 'futile" Covenant draft

Here's the crux of the article that follows below:

Both Dr Thompson and Prof Noll argued that the exclusion of theologians and leaders of the Gafcon movement weakened the credibility of the document. "If the Covenant Design Group truly wishes to be inclusive, it needs to sit down with the leadership of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans and seek to incorporate the principles of the Jerusalem Declaration into the Covenant," Prof Noll said. "Any hope" for the future of the Anglican Communion, Dr Thompson said, "lies with those faithful bishops and other leaders whose voices could not be heard at Lambeth because they had chosen to gather in Jerusalem.

Interpretation: Gafcon wants to run the whole show. Any Covenant that falls short of imposing a "confessional standard" on Anglicanism will never meet their demands. (There! I summarized the whole article in two sentences!)

+ + + + +

October 30th, 2008 Posted in Anglican Covenant, Global Anglican Future Conference | By George Conger, CEN

THE PROPOSED Anglican Covenant is an "exercise in futility," theologians affiliated with the Gafcon movement tell The Church of England Newspaper, and the current draft is beset with "a considerable degree of theological confusion."

On Oct 22, the Anglican Covenant Design Group chaired by Archbishop Drexel Gomez of the West Indies (pictured) released a commentary on the proposed pan-Anglican agreement drawn from comments made by bishops attending this summer’s Lambeth Conference. The 33-page "Lambeth Commentary" has been distributed to each of the Communion’s 38 provinces, with the request that they offer their comments on the commentary as well as the underlying draft of the Covenant by March 9, 2009.

The Design Group said it hoped the Lambeth Commentary "will stand alongside the St Andrew’s Draft [released in February 2008] as a critique and as a stimulus for study and response."

The Covenant Design Group will meet in March 2009 to develop a new draft based upon the provincial responses and submit the final report to the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) at its May 1-12 meeting in Montego Bay, Jamaica.

The Lambeth Commentary suggests the Anglican Communion adopt a form of alternative dispute resolution to resolve its divisions over doctrine and discipline, citing the examples of conflict mediation, South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Chinese community centres,’ and the racially segregated Anglican churches of New Zealand.

The Commentary also urged the Design Group to permit dioceses to endorse the Covenant. During the Lambeth Conference, ACC Deputy Secretary General Canon Gregory Cameron said the St Andrew’s Draft did not envision dioceses being the primary signatories of the Covenant. However, the Lambeth Commentary urged a reconsideration of this view, noting if "the canons and constitutions of a Province permit, there is no reason why a diocesan synod should not commit itself to the covenant, thus strengthening its commitment to the interdependent life of the Communion."

US Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori told members of the church’s Executive Council on Oct 21 that she would "strongly discourage" consideration of the Covenant at the July meeting of General Convention. "The time is far too short before our General Convention for us to have a thorough discussion of it as a church and I’m therefore going to strongly discourage any move to bring it to General Convention. I just think it’s inappropriate to make a decision that weighty," she said. However, critics note the 2003 decision by General Convention to affirm the election of Gene
Robinson was made in less time.

This week the Sydney theologian Dr Mark Thompson, Dean of Moore Theological College, argued the covenant process would not resolve the problems before the Anglican Communion.

The actions of Bishop Schori and New Westminster Bishop Michael Ingham since Lambeth "have made clear that the covenant idea simply will not deal with the real issues."

The "Lambeth Commentary itself refuses to deal with the real issues," he noted, observing that the Covenant was "entirely irrelevant" and would "make no difference to the current situation and will be unable to prevent future challenges of the same magnitude," Dr Thompson said.

The present draft of the Anglican Covenant made a "simplistic appeal to the biblical covenants" in support of its agenda, yet the biblical covenants "were instituted by God as a gift which provided a framework for understanding Israel’s relationship with him. At the heart was hearing, believing and obeying God’s word. They ought not be confused a covenant between human beings," he said.

The Lambeth Commentary was also unclear as to what it understood the Covenant to be, describing it both as a "central text" while also "speaking about it as a ‘foundational document’." Dr Thompson added that there was an "ecclesiological confusion when the ‘local church’ is described as ‘that portion of God’s people gathered around their bishop, usually in the form of a territorial diocese’," —- a description of the church not supported by the Articles of Religion.

It was "simply untrue" to say that the Windsor process and the Anglican Covenant were the "only game in town," Dr Thompson said. "It is the unwillingness of the current leadership of the Communion to deal directly and biblically with the crisis created by the American and Canadian revisionists, its prevarication and personal compromise that has radically deepened the crisis and ensured that the covenant as it is proposed simply will not work."

Prof Stephen Noll, Vice Chancellor of Uganda Christian University told CEN the "most important requirements of a workable covenant are doctrinal substance and disciplinary efficacy. The drafts to date have fallen short on both counts." Both Dr Thompson and Prof Noll argued that the exclusion of theologians and leaders of the Gafcon movement weakened the credibility of the document. "If the Covenant Design Group truly wishes to be inclusive, it needs to sit down with the leadership of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans and seek to incorporate the principles of the Jerusalem Declaration into the Covenant," Prof Noll said. "Any hope" for the future of the Anglican Communion, Dr Thompson said, "lies with those faithful bishops and other leaders whose voices could not be heard at Lambeth because they had chosen to gather in Jerusalem.

"The St Andrews Draft of An Anglican Covenant, and the Lambeth Commentary on that draft, are institutional responses to a situation that can only be resolved by much, much more," he concluded.

Fascinating Article over at Preludium

Be sure to check out Mark Harris' article entitled "Charting the Anglican Elliptic: The Churches and the Communion as foci."

Cantuar: sic et non? Reflections on the "Canterbury-centeredness" of the Anglican Communion

What I find troubling about the whole "Cantuar sic et non?" debate is that the focus has been improperly placed on the man who currently resides in the office, with the result that disatisfaction and frustration with +++Rowan Williams (much of it justified) unfortunately morphs into questioning the wisdom of recognizing Canterbury as primas inter pares in the Communion at all.

From my perspective, any debate on whether or not the Communion should remain "Canterbury-centered" is really a secondary matter. So for instance, if, in its common life, the Anglican Communion were one day to decide upon instituting a "rotating primacy" or an "elected head" for itself, then so be it. I'd have no theological objection to this at all. (However, I suspect that if this were to happen Canterbury would still be afforded a symbolic figurehead role, such as that enjoyed by the Ecumenical Patriarch in the Eastern Church, but I digress.)

Maintaining our "Canterbury-centeredness" is not about maintaining ancient prerogatives of an historic see, per se, but about keeping the Communion -- in the present -- from fracturing. Right now, for better or for worse, the Communion has four Instruments of Unity, one of which is the Archbishop of Canterbury. This will not change in the near future short of a schism in the Communion (and then only for those folks that actually go into schism).

Thus any "common-life solution" to the present crisis in the Communion must work within the structures of the Communion itself and with the Instruments of Unity that we presently have. Those who choose to work outside these structures, or through parallel structures that effectively veto the decisions and actions of the Instruments, are not working within the common life of the Communion. Period. In fact, I suspect the only reason we are hearing so much anti-Cantuar rhetoric these days is because such rhetoric serves to rationalize or justify actions from outside the common life of our Communion.

Fr. Will Brown Comments on "A Word in Time"

I don't typically link to the comments from other blogs, but I thought this entry by Fr. Will Brown (a Covenant contributor ) over at Titus OneNine was brilliant.

+++++++++++++

I think, to shuck it down to the cob, we should not start a new group. Part of what it means to be an Anglican (perhaps the biggest part) is our commitment to discern these kinds of things (blessing same sex relationships, etc.) with our brother Anglicans. That’s what, in part, 1998.1.10 is all about. But the disciplinary stuff (e.g. what happens when a diocese doesn’t want to be part of its provincial structure but does want to be part of the Communion?) is no less a task for common discernment. In short: to be Anglican means to look for Anglican answers to these questions. Who enunciates Anglican answers? Well, over the past century and a half, the common life we lead as Anglicans has kind of indicated that we look to the ABC, Lambeth, the Primates Meeting, and the ACC to answer these kinds of questions. The problem is that the answers aren’t binding, because hitherto they haven’t really needed to be binding. Now the task is to mutually (as a Communion) discern a way to agree to be bound by Anglican answers (the answers of the Instruments). In other words, the task in front of us isn’t just for the Communion to tell TEC that TEC is wrong. The Communion has done that already… repeatedly (cf. 1998.1.10 and the various statements ever sense, most recently at Lambeth). We have to go back a step further and figure out a way to agree to be bound to one another more tightly. THAT’S what takes time. And rightly so. Its a sea change in the common life of Anglicans. And many of us think its a change for the better, because it will be the foundation not only for the solution to the current problems, but for future problems too. There will be not merely a resolution, but a MECHANISM for coming to a resolution. The lack of the mechanism is Anglicanism’s Achilles’ heal—i.e. the fact that there really is no legitimate way for the Communion to speak to TEC with authority. TEC is correct in pointing out that provinces are largely autonomous. But we now see that this kind of autonomy is disastrous. (That should be no surprise to anyone—autonomy literally means being a law unto oneself, and that just SOUNDS, prima facie, terrible unGospel—and it is.)

To recap: being an Anglican, at this point in time, means being willing to invest the time and psychic (aka “soulish") energy necessary to lay a foundation for a renewed Communion with stronger and deeper trans-provincial (aka global) relationships—deepening our koinonia, our fellowship, our communion with one another. And concomitantly relinquishing some of our (unChristian) autonomy. In short: finding a way to live into the truth that “what effects all should be decided by all”. Above all else now this means patience and a willingness to endure the birth-pangs. But the result, if we can just endure to the end, could well be a deepened, renewed, and sanctified Anglican Communion, able to carry the Gospel to the unbelieving world all the more effectively precisely in virtue of our visibly deepened and renewed love for one another. The world will see that we are committed to one another, that we patiently bear one another’s burdens, that we willingly forego advantage and individual “success” for the sake of one another. And the world will find that compelling, because people want to LIVE, and because the world only knows self-seeking, isolation, violence and exploitation: which all lead to death.

A Word In Time: An Open Letter to the Anglican Communion

August 25, 2008

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

We the undersigned contributors to Covenant-Communion.com believe that “a word in time” is now needed in order to assist the Communion to move forward in a constructive manner following the Lambeth Conference. We would like to speak such a word by specifically addressing the points Bishop Bob Duncan raises in his email to Bishop Gary Lillibridge, which has now been made public with Bp. Duncan’s permission. Our reflections are offered with all due respect for Bishop Duncan as a dear friend to some of us, and one whom those of us who know him personally admire as a stalwart in the faith. Bishop Duncan’s words are quoted in italics with our reflections following.

Read the rest of this important and timely letter and/or download a pdf version of it over at Covenant.

Naming New Archbishops of Canterbury

From The Times

August 5, 2008
Arch appointment
Naming new archbishops of Canterbury

Sir, As Archbishops’ appointments secretary at the time of the selection of Archbishop Rowan Williams to Canterbury, I was disappointed to note Archbishop Orombi’s misleading description of the selection process as “appointed by a secular government” (August 1).

The fact is that the Prime Minister was presented with two names elected by the Crown Appointments Commission (CAC), of whom he was obliged to choose one for recommendation to the Queen. The CAC (now the Crown Nominations Commission, CNC) is an electoral college, with clerical and lay representation from the General Synod and the Diocese of Canterbury.

The commission was informed by a substantial process of widespread consultation. The Archbishop may not recall that I personally attended a meeting of all the Anglican primates, at which support for Rowan Williams was manifest. While not at liberty to disclose details of the CAC meeting itself, I can say that I have never attended a meeting where the presence of the Holy Spirit was so clearly and movingly in evidence.

Orombi must surely be aware that a process of “election by his peers” is not always beyond criticism. And of course this was precisely the method by which Bishop Gene Robinson was selected.

Anthony Sadler
Former Archbishops’ Secretary for Appointments
Ars-en-Ré, France

Comment: Touché!

Lambeth Post-Mortem by Fr. Dan Martins

Thank you, Fr. Dan, for this hopeful assessment!

In his 1999 book Plato, Not Prozac!, Lou Marinoff contends that a substantial proportion of human mental and emotional suffering stems not from the actual events of our lives, but from our expectations about the actual events of our lives. The ants at the picnic didn’t ruin our afternoon; our expectation that the picnic grounds would be free of ants ruined our afternoon.

The Lambeth Conference of Anglican bishops has now concluded after three weeks, and if the blogsphere is any indication, there is a palpable degree of human mental and emotional suffering floating in its wake. It’s certainly not suffering on the order of that experienced by those who are punched by a tsunami or a hurricane, but it’s nonetheless important to those who are feeling it at the moment. Perhaps Marinoff’s book should have been required reading for anyone with a horse in this race.

A couple of weeks ago, I took inventory of my own expectations, hopes, and wishes for this Lambeth Conference. This seems an appropriate time to audit that list and reflect on its relationship to subsequent developments:

Read the rest of this article over at Covenant.

My Thoughts on the Fr. Kimel Kerfuffle

To quote myself:

I came to the conclusion some years ago that "Anglicanism" was not primarily about doctrine or formularies, but about connection to and continuity with the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church as mediated through the Church of England. So it seemed foolish to me to identify with Anglicanism on this level while aligning myself with a church or movement that almost entirely identified Anglicanism with doctrine (39 Articles) and formularies (1662 BCP). ("Why I Migrated to The Episcopal Church," Entry: July 30, 2007)

At least one constructive thing has come out of the recent dialogue (charity compels me to call it such) between Fr. Al Kimel and myself. It has reminded me of my own words above. Indeed, it was Fr. Kimel himself who linked the article which contains the above quote to his most recent critque of my article "Personal Reflections on Why I Remain in TEC".

As I hinted in the "trailer" of a previous entry, Fr. Kimel has asked the wrong question, (or, perhaps better, an inadequate question) in the title of his article, "Is The Episcopal Church Truly a Catholic Church?" In so doing, he has unwittingly pigeon-holed himself into answering the question in terms of the relative orthodoxy of TEC's adherents, and thus comes across not as a Roman Catholic apologist debating the catholic claims of Anglicanism as much as he does a former Episcopalian displaying his disappointment and disenchantment with his former church's continuous flirtations with erroneous teaching (the pan-sexual agenda), or, in some cases, embracing of innovative positions (e.g., women's ordination). His arguments in this respect are not much different than those who have thrown their lot in with CANA or the AMiA, or the GAFCON movement for that matter.

Now, I'm not about to engage in a debate over or defend various recent actions of TEC. I should think that Fr. Kimel and I agree for the most part about these matters, and so these hardly need rehashing. My point, however, should not be missed: To argue against the catholicity of a particular church based on a point-in-time snapshot of the relative orthodoxy of its adherents, whether a majority or a significant tolerated minority, is to subject every church at every point in history (including one's own) to the same standard.

But does Fr. Kimel really want to go down that road? Does he really wish to uphold the relative orthodoxy of the adherents of Roman Catholicism throughout its long and less than exemplary history as the standard by which all others are judged catholic? Or is he claiming for Rome and its adherents an "abosulte orthodoxy and orthopraxy" by which all other catholic claimants are judged? (The recent comment from the Anglican Scotist about how Fr. Kimel wants "to make a clean, binary distinction in terms of esse sufficient to completely unchurch Episcopalians" is right on the money here.)

If that is the route Fr. Kimel would like to pursue, then perhaps we should begin our discussion with the sins of simony and nepotism, or the sale of grace through indulgences in the sixteenth century. Or perhaps we should bring the discussion into modern times, and talk about the "Ted Kennedys" and "Nancy Pelosis" of the world. Should we discuss the American Roman hierarchy's complicity in covering up the recent sex scandals and child molestations which some of her priests have perpetrated? I, for one, would rather not go down that road.

So, Fr. Kimel, let's not go there, because, unless one wishes to assume the foolish position of an absolute orthodoxy, there are no winners in such a contest. Instead, let's engage in a debate about the nature of catholicity itself. And I think a good place to begin would be with my quoted statement above. Show me how my "connection to" and "continuity with" the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church as mediated through the Church of England has been severed or interrupted by my remaining in The Episcopal Church.

The Anglican Scotist's Comment on the "Kimel Kerfuffle"

I grabbed this from the comments section of my entry that links to Fr. Al Kimel's "Is the Episcopal Church a Truly Catholic Church"(Click Here). As I've come to expect from him, the Anglican Scotist concisely gets right to the heart of the matter:

It seems [Kimel] will have to speak without contradicting Vatican II's ecclesiology, which might be difficult, given that he seems to want to make a clean, binary distinction in terms of esse sufficient to completely unchurch Episcopalians.

He may also have to ignore the significance of the distinction between (a) Christ being with the Church always, and (b) Christ chastising the church because he loves it. That is, it seems Christ may remain sufficiently present in the church he punishes, which implies deserving punishment--say for material heresy--does not alone entail abandonment.

Anyhow, let's hope he says something new soon; summer is draining away.

Interesting Take on the "Kimel Kontroversy"

Room With A View has weighed in on the latest from Al Kimel (see entry below). Doug Martin, a former Anglican and now a Roman Catholic convert, provides an interesting perspective.

"Is The Episcopal Church Truly a Catholic Church?" Fr. Al Kimel's Response to My Article

In the interest of fairness, I'm posting a link to De Cura Animarum so that my readers may read the ongoing dialogue between Fr. Al Kimel and me. He is invited to post directly to my blog if he so wishes.

By way of a trailer to my counter-response, I'll simply say that Fr. Kimel is asking the wrong question.

Postscript: It is interesting to note that Fr. Kimel did not actually choose to respond to my article "Al Kimel's Comments on My Recent Entries," but rather chose to continue his critique of my original article "Personal Reflections on Remaining in TEC," which obviously was not intended to be anything more than a brief rationale for staying in TEC and the Anglican Communion rather than throwing my lot in with GAFCON. Quite frankly, I think my response to Kimel provides much better material for a debate between a Roman and an Anglican. But perhaps there are issues that I raised in that article that he would rather not address.

CT Interview with +Tom Wright

The Bishop of Durham, the Rt Rev Tom Wright, offers some reflections on the Lambeth Conference so far and how he thinks the Anglican Communion can move forward after the three weeks of prayer and discussion draw to an end on Sunday.

Read the whole CT interview over at Fulcrum.


CT: You must have had some kind of expectation before you came to Lambeth of what it was going to be like. Have those expectations been fulfilled?

TW: I did have various mental pictures of what it was going to be like before I came and I keep on being surprised now because it has not been at all like I expected. I am not quite sure now what it was that I was expecting. It is wild and wacky and there is so much going that I have only heard about three days after they happened by reading them on somebody’s blog or whatever.


CT: Some conservatives were anxious in coming to Lambeth and some here have actually said they don’t feel any hope towards the future of the Anglican Communion. Do you share those feelings?

TW: I always tell my staff at home to distinguish between feelings and thinking because your feelings will come and go if you are tired or in a meeting perhaps and then you will feel like all hope is lost. You have to go back and pray and think.

The situation is still extremely complex. The Archbishop of Canterbury said when he invited us all that if you accept this invitation you are accepting to work with the Windsor Report and the Covenant process. The Archbishop reiterated that on Sunday afternoon and has reiterated it publicly several times.

If the Windsor Report is properly followed through and if the Covenant process actually gets somewhere where it is designed to get then things can happen which will give hope to a lot of people who are at present in danger of losing hope. I say that in general terms because I am not in charge of the process, I’m not on the group for taking forward either of those things. So I am not entirely sure what will happen with either of them and to put it devoutly I am not sure how the Holy Spirit will lead those who are working on those things.

A Fifth Instrument of Unity: Proposed Anglican Faith and Order Commission

Some hopeful rumblings from Lambeth. See commentary and links over at Fulcrum.

My Conversation with Stand Firm's Sarah about GAFCON

My readers may view the full discussion (including Roland's entry) here: Restating a Third Mill Catholic Prophecy.

Sarah writes:

Oh, I certainly believe that the Communion will break up -- but not for anything that Gafcon did or didn't do.

I think that Gafcon is merely the consequence of the Communion's inability -- and I believe it to be unable -- to discipline itself.

For example, you state that setting up the Gafcon Primates Council undermines "the authority and relevance of the already-established Primates' Meeting" -- but of course it was already undermined and ignored and appears to have no authority at all, as Dar has now well-demonstrated.

It seems that we are debating the *causes* of the inevitable breakup of the Communion and I just can't see that Gafcon will have had much to do with it. I think that Gafcon's eventual -- and I think it is eventual in a long-term sense -- separation from the Communion will be a *consequence* of the fracture and dissolution of the Communion and not its cause.

There will be a long long long list of causes of the dissolution of the Communion and I don't think that history will record Gafcon as a major one, if at all.

Roland, you say "If conservatives had maintained a united front and lined up behind +Rowan's covenant proposal, they could easily have isolated the North American revisionists" and I have to laugh at what seems to me to be breathtaking naivete about the process.

Conservatives could have maintained a "united front" till the cows come home but again -- it is the ACC and the Covenant Design Group that determines what the Covenant actually is and whether it will be effective.

Of course -- there is still time. The Design Group meets after Lambeth for its next draft, and the ACC will get its mitts on the Covenant some time in early April of 09. It will then proceed to the provinces' for their individual approvals.

I personally believe that *all* the provinces, including TEC and Sydney, will sign on to the Covenant.

And so, by the end of 2009, we will be in the exact same place as we were in December of 03, with all the provinces of the Anglican Communion staring at one another, completely opposed in their two gospels, and with no discipline.

And a signed, approved Covenant -- with *all* the conservatives approving it -- won't, of course, solve any problems at all.

Someday, I'll probably leave the Communion. But saying that Gafcon is "causing the breakup of the Communion" sounds very similar to a person saying "when Sarah left the Communion, she caused its breakup."

I guess if you are operating under the assumption that if all conservatives, including Gafcon members, simply sat in the Communion and never did anything, that *then* the Communion would never break up, then I can see your point. But in that case, you seem to be advocating for all of us to simply sit still -- and the Communion will survive.

Sarah

+++
Dear Sarah,

You're correct that the Communion is currently unable to discipline itself, but this is because the structures were never in place to do so. No one denies this, and in fact this is precisely what the Windsor Commission originally reported.

So the question at hand is NOT, nor has it ever been, why hasn't the ABC (or the some other instrument) done anything to "discipline" TEC? There is no process to discipline. Rather, the question is what structures must evolve over the next few years to bring the Communion to the point where it can live together in "autonomy with accountability"? (As the Windsor Continuation Group has recently said). This implies that the Communion is working towards the accountability structures that will provide for discipline. We're simply not there yet.

GAFCON effectively is already a schism -- "Methodist-style" as I have argued in the past. Never in history has the "church within a church" strategy ever worked for reform, but has always ended in separation via estrangement.

The essential problem with GAFCON (as evidenced by the Jerusalem statement itself) is that its major movers and shakers (e.g., Akinola) are federalists. No less than a federal (and confessional) solution will please them. Akinola made his move long before GAFCON by changing his province's constitution to write Canterbury out of the definition of what it means for his province to be Anglican.

I think you know me better than to suggest that I advocate sitting still. I actually think we need a "refuge" of some kind for the disaffected in our province. However, this should be set up as an extraordinary "safe space" for conservatives, not as a first step towards "realignment" or separation (i.e., schism).

Indeed, I'm sure that this is precisely where you and I differ in our estimations of GAFCON. You see what has been done as essentially what I advocate in the paragraph above (i.e., safe spaces). I see these so-called "safe spaces" as hopelessly compromised (and dominated) by federalists who don't give a rat's ass for saving the so-called Canterbury-centered Anglican Communion (Noll and Rodgers for instance).

So if you wish to talk about causes, well there are plenty to choose from, indeed. But it's naive to give GAFCON a "get out of jail free card" on this one. The intellectual engine behind GAFCON is compromised by federalism, and there is nothing stopping that train now that it's rolling down the track.

GAFCON and the Anglican Covenant by Andrew Goddard

Check out this analysis of the recent GAFCON response to the Covenant Process. This is brilliant.

Covenant