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.

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.

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.

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

Al Kimel's Comments on My Recent Entries

Below is a portion of a post written by Al Kimel over at Per Caritatem. This entry was excised from the discussion of my recent brief essays "Personal Reflections for Remaining in TEC," "The Problem of Confessionalism," and "Restating a Third Mill Catholic Prophecy." Biretta tip to Cynthia Nielsen for bringing these posts to the attention of her readers, and for maintaining the best theological blog in the blogosphere bar none. See link for the discussion below.

+++++++

I don’t believe that most who are really struggling with the present direction of the Episcopal Church will find Fr Daniel Dunlap’s reflections very helpful. Basically he seems to be saying, Episcopalians are all over the place theologically, but the TEC and Anglican Communion still formally retain catholic creeds and catholic orders, so there’s no imperative to break communion. As Fr Dunlap writes, “the only thing that really matters at the end of the day is the Church’s credo, not our individual “credos,” and endeavoring to live into it.”

This, of course, has been precisely the line advanced by most orthodox Episcopalians during the past thirty years. It is a failed strategy, and it ignores the political, theological, and ecclesial and seminary realities now confronting the “orthodox” (however one draws the lines of “orthodoxy”).

+++++++

First, I'll make a concession. Yes, Episcopalians are all over the place theologically, but then so are Roman Catholics. The difference? The Romans have in place a magisterium and a very nuanced rationale for doctrinal development that, when taken together, have so far managed to cover over centuries of theological missteps and still leave room for an infallible definition or two from time to time. However, they also make good hiding places for the "existentialist-expressivists" for whom Fr. Kimel apparently has no liking, and whom Fr. Kimel apparently would rather pretend did not exist within the Roman camp.

Be that as it may, the magisterium-doctrinal development thesis is so ingrained in the Roman psyche that to deny its catholicity (which I do) seemingly places its detractors on a playing field slanted in favor of those who affirm it. Okay, fair enough. I accept the premise that an "Anglican magisterium" would make Anglican life so much easier. But would it make Anglicanism more "catholic"? Would it solve the issues that so divide the Anglican Communion today? Or, rather, would it solidify for all time certain theological innovations in the name of "Anglican doctrinal development"? I believe the latter to be more likely, and I believe that supposedly "infallible" Roman dogmas (e.g., the Immaculate Conception) make the point better than I ever could.

Such a scenario, of course, is nonsensical. An "Anglican magisterium" is about as oxymoronic a term as one can imagine. However, my point should be obvious: the Anglican way of being "catholic" (or living into catholicity) is different than the Roman way. So why is it that Roman apologists (many of them ex-Anglicans, I might add) only come out to play when they have homefield advantage? Obviously it's futile to argue for the catholicity of Anglicanism on Roman terms. So I won't. I will be content to argue for the catholicity of Anglicanism on Anglican terms.

At first, it may appear odd to my readers to hear me suggest that Anglicanism has its "own terms" or definition of catholicity. But it shouldn't. I have argued on a number of occasions that each of the three major apostolic communions (i.e., Roman, Byzantine, Anglican) operate on quite different understandings of what it means to be "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic." Romanism and Byzantinism both make claims of ecclesial ultimacy. But their respective claims are mutually exclusive, as the former insists on papal supremacy and the latter on the received faith of the ecumenical councils. Thus, despite whatever superficial similarities Rome and Byzantium may have, they are different ways of understanding what it means to be catholic. In contrast, Anglicanism has never made a claim of ecclesial ultimacy, and so defines itself not as the Catholic Church, but rather as a catholic church, and thus recognizes the other two communions as legitimate branches of "the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church." Unlike Fr. Kimel, I see this as Anglicanism's greatest strength, not its weakness. And if it survives the present struggles, then it will only be that much stronger.

You see, believe it or not, I still believe in "common prayer catholicity," which, contrary to Al Kimel's reductionism above, is more than just the formal retention of ancient creeds and apostolic orders. Neither is my position merely a "strategy," failed or otherwise, for the orthodox to stay put in TEC/Anglican Communion. I don't need a reason or a strategy to stay in TEC. Indeed, the burden of proof is STILL on those who insist that I should leave! Rather Anglicanism is a way of being catholic, or living into catholicity, that has proven itself very effective and extremely resilient over the last nearly 500 years of this independent Anglican experiment. I still believe that Anglicanism is a movement of God. I may be wrong. But why should I give up on it now?

Per Caritatem

On the Actions of General Synod (CoE) to Allow for the Ordination of Women to the Episcopate

For me, yesterday's vote of the Church of England's General Synod to authorize the ordination of women to the episcopate WITHOUT MAKING ADEQUATE PROVISION for dissenting traditionalists was a bigger blow to the stomach than GafCon. Now I made my peace with the ordination of women some time ago, so in a sense I didn't have a dog in this fight. After all, by my own choice, freely and without reservation, I was ordained into a diocese that ordains women. So I would hardly "qualify" as an Anglo-Catholic by comparison to the 24 karat variety of catholic in the Church of England or in the Continuing Church for that matter. (I don't count my previous ordination in the Free Church of England as valid episcopal ordination since it clearly lacked "intent.")

Still, I'm afriad that the Church of England lost something very precious and unique this week. The English Church has always been a microcosm of the Communion itself, comprehending within her the whole spectrum of Anglicanism. Not anymore. One might say that the Mother Church, if not all of Anglicanism, has suddenly become stingy, if not outright miserly, in what she is willing to present to the rest of Christendom as her "generous orthdoxy."

But who's to blame?

Think back, if you will, to the 1993-94 measure to ordain women as priests. Many moderates and "liberals" also supported a separate measure to keep Anglo-Catholic traditionalists under the same tent by providing Provincial Episcopal Visitors ("flying bishops"). This made sense. The Church of England was bracing itself for a MASS exodus of traditionalists. But the mass exodus turned out to be trickle. Why? Because adequate provision for dissenters of women's ordination was made.

I still recall a chapel sermon given in the Michaelmas term 1993 by Dr. Dick France, then Principal of Wycliffe Hall, who preached vociferously against Anglo-Catholic "bullying" on the issue of women's ordination. I was stunned, especially to find out how different English-style Evangelical Anglicanism was from my own experience of Evangelical Anglicanism in the USA (I was at the time a deacon in the Reformed Episcopal Church). Clearly, it was the moderates who came to the rescue of the Anglo-Catholics in that day.

However, the tide has shifted. Perhaps it is an overstatement to place blame on the "recent unpleasantness" in Jerusalem (i.e., GafCon). Okay, it is an overstatement to blame GafCon. But can there be any doubt at all that the same attitudes and events that led to GafCon also contributed to the cool reception of General Synod towards any measure that would provide "safe space" for traditionalists via a parallel structure in the Church of England? Certainly even before GafCon, the cross-jurisdictional actions of the Southern Cone and other provinces, not to mention Reform's incessant calls for Evangelical "flying bishops," along with the illicit ordinations of Evangelical "presbyters" in London, created a climate of distrust for parallel structures in England. GafCon was merely icing on the cake!

But whatever else may be said, here's what I know from my own experience in England. There is very little love lost between Evangelicals (of any variety) and Anglo-Catholics. A major difference between American Catholics and English Catholics is that the former are more at home with Evangelicals, which is why +Iker, +Ackerman, et al. are quite comfortable working hand-in-hand with them. The kind of cooperation we see over here (in the USA) between parties is not nearly as common as I think we Americans assume it must be over there. That's just the way it is. It would not surprise me in the least if many Evangelicals (the so-called "open" ones) voted in favor of yesterday's measure. Not at all.

That's my take. I'm not infallible and I'm open for critique. So please let me know what you think.

Restating a Third Mill Catholic Prophecy

Let me suggest that the GafCon response is a case of self-fulfilled prophecy. As ineffective as the Archibshop of Canterbury's leadership has been, it pales in comparison to the resolve of those who seized upon the opportunity of Rowan Williams' “dithering” to force a Protestant structural change upon the Communion in the guise of a Communion-wide solution to the revisionist agenda of TEC. Truth be told, a united conservative front had the voting bloc to make a real difference in the Windsor/Covenant process, despite a “dithering” Archbishop, but now those hopes are seemingly dashed. Impatient federalists have seized the day to take control of the conservative Anglican destiny and re-create it in their own image, and now we are more divided than ever. The recent blasting of N.T. Wright by the federalists is but scratching the surface of just how divided conservative Anglicans are. I said it before, I’ll say it again: In five years, perhaps ten, there will be two distinct communions, neither of which will be recognizably Anglican.

Why Anglican Confessionalism will Undermine the Anglican Catholic Position

Spinning the 39 Articles to negate the Reformation doctrine behind them is not an honest interpretation. This was Newman’s folly in Tract 90, which even he in time came to understand. GAFCON and the Jerusalem Declaration will, in time, undermine the Anglo-Catholics who threw their lot in with the new Confessional Anglican Fellowship. Like the Reformed Episcopal Church, where some presbyters push the Protestant confessional envelope with smells and bells, debates over “catholicity” will be reduced in meaning to eccentric tastes in vestments and arguments over funny hats and sacred trinkets, which amounts to how “high church” one can be in worship and still remain a faithful Protestant!

The Problem with Confessionalism

The problem I have with confessionalism can be summarized in two words: locality and constitutionality. I don't have difficulty with confessions of faith, per se. But we must recognize them as limited by their local nature (i.e., they are not universal), local context (i.e., they address issues at hand at a particular time and in a particular setting) and local perspective (i.e., they cannot anticipate later developments, broadening horizens, or new circumstances). This is particularly problematic when a church or tradition affirms a confession as constitutive of its life and existence, where a confession stands as the unalterable sine qua non of "true" Christian faith and practice.

GAFCON's "confessional Anglican" alternative shifts the balance between "catholic" and "reformed" that presently characterizes Anglicanism dramatically to one side (i.e., the reformed). Hence, the suppression of those Anglicans out of sync with the confessional rationale is inevitable, IMO. This is not a good scenario for catholics. Just ask Jim Packer.

The Real War is Trinitarian

A long time ago I stated that the real war out there was Trinitarian, not the Bible and certainly not sex, which are but proxy wars. Think of the Korean War, Vietnam, Afghanistan (in the 80s), Nicaragua -- all proxy wars of the Cold War. Proxy wars still need to be fought. They are like moves in a game of chess, but the real war isn't over and won until checkmate. Unless we keep our eye on the real war, we may be distracted and make a wrong move to protect the wrong chess piece and end up losing the whole game. GAFCON appears to be poised to make a wrong move.

If GAFCON results in two distinct communions, neither of which are recognizably Anglican, then at that point the Anglican "knight" on the chessboard will have been extinguished, and many Anglican Catholics will be off to fight the Trinitarian war alongside the Roman "queen."

Personal Reflections on Remaining in TEC

I can continue to minister in TEC and the Anglican Communion for two overriding reasons. First, TEC and the Anglican Communion are still explicitly catholic, even if many of the bishops/clergy are (in varying degrees) preaching/teaching inconsistently with the Church's credo. Second, I don't believe in the doctrine of "the total depravity of TEC" (sorry folks). In my experience, though things may be bad, even really bad at times, I have not written off every person, every bishop, every priest or deacon that holds (to some degree) "revisionist positions."

If one were to listen indiscriminately to the rhetoric of the GAFCON conservatives, one would conclude that every person, every bishop, every priest and deacon that is in any way identified with "revisionism" is totally void of a living faith. I know this to be an unfair generalization.

In essence, I don't believe that the simple "two gospels" dichotomy is an accurate working description of the way things really are in TEC or the Anglican Communion. Truth be told, people are all over the map. Only the most tenacious folks on the extreme wings are living into the reality of "two gospels" and believe it to be their divine calling to impose one or the other "gospel" on everyone else. That's why the only thing that really matters at the end of the day is the Church's credo, not our individual "credos," and endeavoring to live into it.

GAFCON - Initial Thoughts

I'm breaking my self-imposed blogging embargo to share my thoughts about GAFCON with whoever still visits this blog.

Essentially GAFCON has tragically redefined Anglicanism in an attempt to force an ineffective Archbishop to do what needs to be done. It's a tragic day for the Communion, with plenty of blame to place on all parties. But to re-create Anglicanism as a "confessional body" along the lines of the Missouri Synod Lutherans, or worse, the PCA, is the biggest blow of all. This is not the way to fix the Communion. It is schism -- Anglican style. If we are not careful, within five years, perhaps ten, there will be two distinct communions, neither of which will be recognizably Anglican.