Yeah, yeah, yeah. I know. He's not an Anglo-Catholic. He's antinomian. He's a lutheran. Whatever. He's an ally, and he's very wise.
This is from Dean Zahl's essay in Virtuosity:
There is precedent in our history for both strategies. The Protestant
Reformation ended up, in most regions, with an outside strategy. It was
never the Reformers' founding idea to separate from the old church. But
politics and also resistance on the part of the old church meant that it
worked out that way. The Methodists, similarly, started with an inside
strategy, to renew the Church of England from the inside out. But again,
resistance from the Established Church, coupled with the needs of the
American frontier, created a situation from which only an outside
strategy could finally prosper....
The inside strategy sounds good. And it basically is good. It takes the
more apparently humble path in seeking not to supplant or lecture the
old church, but rather to listen to it, and walk with it in a more
patient and gentle way. None of us would probably wish to protest at
this point. It was always one of the attractive features of the Roman
Catholic charismatic renewal that their prayer groups seemed to embody a
humble spirit in relation to the church at large. These people were
content to meet in church basements and in home groups clustered around
renewed local churches, and not draw down upon themselves the criticism
of self-righteousness or a "holier than thou" attitude which renewal
groups in the Protestant denominations usually encounter.
The problem with the inside strategy is that in the American context,
which is culturally confrontative and often "my-way-or-the-highway", we
tend to get hounded out. Evangelical personal religion can prove
mightily threatening to traditional Episcopalian ways of doing things.
It is partly cultural baggage, for evangelicals and charismatics have
been labeled as crypto-Baptists and the like. Many convinced
Episcopalians pin their whole religious identity on not being
"baptist-y".
So the inside strategy is problematic for us. We want to do it. We want
to work within the old church. We love a great many things about the old
church. We love, for example, the Prayer Book tradition and its vertical
worship. We love the beauty of our ancient parishes - ancient, at least,
by USA standards. We love good music. We value the continuity with the
past that the old church can represent.
The question is, Will the old church let us be ourselves? That is the
question. Will we actually be allowed, within ECUSA, to develop an
acceptable inside strategy? Will bishops who oppose our emphases give us
the space to live them out?
What has happened in a great many cases is that the bishops have proven
themselves to be uncomfortable with us. Whether we are Anglo-Catholic
traditionalists, Evangelical believers in Scripture's "Old, Old Story",
or neo-pentecostal people, many bishops, perhaps even most bishops, have
seen us as slightly less than "Anglican". I remember when a former
Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church was asked what he thought of
Dr. Carey, the 103rd Archbishop of Canterbury. He remarked, "Well, he
doesn't seem very Anglican to me". What a thing to say. What a thing to
think!
.....
Do you remember what the Levites did when the Roman general Pompey
entered the precincts of the Temple? They offered their necks to his
soldiers. The ancient historian Josephus made much of that. His
countrymen did the same on one occasion when Pontius Pilate used force
at Jerusalem. They offered their necks to the Praetorian Guard.
Now we, you and I, have to be ready to be martyred. This is to say, we,
as the losers, probably have to be prepared to give it all away. We have
to be prepared to give away our love affair with things English, with
Gothic stone churches (peaceful, tranquil!), with needlepoint kneelers
and cherry wood pews and altar pieces, with robed pomp and even Healey
Willan. I don't wish for this. You probably don't either. But we may be
being forced, or demanded, by the God who governs all events, to get
prepared to give it all away. I hope not, for sure, but the preparedness
is our vocation for now.
The whole thing is here: http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=2273
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
On the one hand, he's right: when it comes down to keeping your 'embroidered kneelers' or keeping your faith, there's only one choice. Part of the Word of God in scripture is preparation for precisely this choice: see Revelation, I Peter, etc. I think it's incumbant upon every pastor to prepare his flock for this kind of difficult choice by having them take a controversial but righteous stand on a moral issue in their community every now and then. As well as by preaching the passages mentioned already.
On the other hand, I can't help but cringe at the lack of Catholic ecclesiology in Dean Zahl's essay. Where's the promise of indefectibility? Who's out there doing the theological work to show us whether that promise holds true for a national church like ECUSA, or whether we can look to the Ang. Communion to find it, or whether it only applies at higher, more ecumenical levels? And what of the imperative in Sacred Tradition to "do nothing without the bishop"? How ought we to think about the historic succession in this age of apostate bishops? I grant that for most Evangelical parishes and clergy who are experiencing persecution, such questions are too abstract, too far away, to do them any good, they think. They need to know whether the ministry to which they've been called can continue more or less effectively without their current bishop: mostly the answer has been 'more'. But that was precisely the kind of short-sightedness that gave us, as Dean Zahl mentions, the Reformation: the greatest victory and greatest tragedy the Western church has known. Yes, we preserve the Evangelical faith; but ought we to be satisfied when we simultaneously deny the apsotolic order and fellowship? If Zahl's reference to the Reformation is any guide, I would say 'no': that kind of thinking has brought us nothing but pain. It's fixing one problem by causing another, and I'm not convinced we've come to that pass yet in the ECUSA.
Let the liberal heretics be the schismatics, especially as we have the lion's share (pun intended) of the Communion on the orthodox side. Let the liberals make the break, while we stand with the Communion.
Who knows? If we can pull that off, we might have legal grounds to keep the pension fund, too.
I don't hold out much hope for keeping a pension in the long run. I think it is realistic eventually to be charged with "leaving the communion" of ECUSA for preaching chastity or something.
I agree about Apostolic faith and order. In fact, I think a part of offering one's neck to the Praetorian Guard is allowing one's bishop his episcopal prerogatives, i.e. visitations, etc. Let him come, I say. All of these law suits are a scandal, and conservatives share part of the blame.
Of course its easy to sit back and offer advice to those in the trenches. And I don't doubt the COURAGE and moral fiber of those willing to hold divine service in the local quonset hut. I just think we are bound by Apostolic order as much as we are bound by anything.
The Jews offered their necks precisely to keep people like ECUSA bishops OUT of their churches.
Post a Comment