the consecrations in kenya

They are going on right now I think (???).  You can watch it on Standfirm.

It is very interesting that Archbishop Drexel, Indiae Occedentis, is present.

there is no plain sense of scripture

The notion that there is "a plain sense" of Scripture, and correlatively that Scripture alone should govern our life in Communion, is mistaken.  It is belied by the existence of many thousands of Protestant denominations, all of which have their origin in disagreements over what Scripture says.

Rather, as Paul told Timothy, the Church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth.  The Lord gave the Apostles magisterial (magister = teacher) and juridical authority, which they passed on to their successors, and which they passed on to their successors -- a process that will continue until the Lord returns in glory.  It is the bishops of the Church, as successors of the Apostles, who have authority to interpret Scripture and promulgate doctrine (docere = to teach).

We may, of course, interpret it too, but only within the parameters of their interpretation.

some thoughts on current anglican events

Last week there was, in Ft. Worth, a meeting of the Anglican Communion Network. There was, and continues to be, a lot of buzz around it.

One of the things that was manifest at the meeting is division in the orthodox camp -- between those wanting out now, and those calling for more patience.

What do I think? I think more patience is necessary. That doesn't mean I hold out much hope for ECUSA. ECUSA's probably lost, and lost for good. I think ECUSA is rapidly being vindicated as just another liberal protestant sect, doomed to go the way of all liberal protestant bodies: declining attendance, growing irrelevance. Ironically this is a byproduct of seeking above all else to be relevant and to increase attendance by being friendly and open to anyone and anything. Barring a miracle, I believe ECUSA is doomed. It is very rich and it will be around for yet a long time. It will become high church, syncretic Unitarianism, and it will continue its sprint to the margins of coherence. Society will regard ECUSA as society regards a demented old lady: tolerated and indulged for the sake of who she once was and because she is high-born, but an irritating embarrassment to all who remain long in her company.

So, why call for more patience from the orthodox who remain in ECUSA? Chiefly: because none of us have the authority to do what needs to be done: to create a Province of the Anglican Communion in North America that is juridically separate from ECUSA. The orthodox bishops who remain in ECUSA can't do it because they are subject to the jurisdiction of ECUSA which doesn't allow such things. This has to be done by the Primates and by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Because to be in the Anglican Communion means to be in communion with the See of Canterbury, and with the other Churches that are in communion with it.

And this takes time. And taking time is frustrating. But what do you expect? The Anglican Communion spans the globe. There are 80 million Christians in it. It moves slowly. But a process has been set in motion that will, God willing, lead to the creation of a North American Province, outside the juridical structure of ECUSA, incontrovertibly in communion with the See of Canterbury and the other Churches of the Anglican Communion. It is outlined in the Windsor Report and the Dar es Salaam Communique and Archbishop Williams' document The Challenge and Hope of Being and Anglican Today.

I understand the frustration of waiting for the Instruments of Communion to grind away while the faithful in ECUSA face inhibitions and lawsuits and various kinds of disenfranchisement. But frankly, as Christians we're called to bear witness to the truth, and we should expect that this will entail suffering. Moreover, I don't understand the the conservatives who thwart the judgment of the Instruments of Communion in their zeal for truth and purity NOW when the very basis for their critique of ECUSA is that it has thwarted the judgment of the Instruments of Communion out of love for the zeitgeist. What's the difference? If to be Anglican means to accept the doctrine and devotion of Anglicanism (and what else could it mean?), then the question becomes: who may authoritatively enunciate Anglican doctrine and set the parameters of Anglican devotion? Is it not the Instruments of Communion, and particularly the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Primates, and the Lambeth Conference, since they are bishops and therefore in a special way the heirs of the Apostles?

Behold how good and pleasant it is when brothers dwell in unity.... For there the Lord has commanded the blessing, life for evermore (Psalm 133)...

Unity is very important. SEEKING and PRESERVING unity is very important -- because it is the fruit of the Lord's commission of bearing witness to the truth. If we lose our unity, then we have ceased to drink from the fountainhead of truth. Clearly this is so for ECUSA: it bears witness to a lie, and the fruit of disunity within and without is slowly blossoming. It will take awhile for the juridical reality to catch up with the pneumatic reality; that's just the way of things in this vale of tears. But we should stick to the plan and continue to call ECUSA to stick to the plan too. I doubt they will, but ceasing to call because an authoritative judgment has not come on our time frame is disobedient and a refusal to hope. It won't go on forever, but it will go on for a season. We will know considerably more after September 30. And I imagine the shape of a definitive resolution to this mess will become clear at the Lambeth Conference.

What can you do? You can bear witness to the truth -- proclaim the gospel -- whether you are a layman, a deacon, priest, or bishop. You can proclaim the gospel and suffer for it. Be the lone voice at Diocesan Conventions. Be the lone voice in your parish. Be disenfranchised. Suffer. "In this you rejoice, though now for a little while you may have to suffer various trials.... Without having seen him, you love him; though you do not now see him you believe in him and rejoice with unutterable and exalted joy. As the outcome of your faith you obtain the salvation of your souls... Therefore gird up your minds, be sober, set your hope fully upon the grace that is coming to you..." (1 Peter 1.6, passim).

And pray, pray, pray. Pray for the blinded souls in ECUSA. Pray for those who persecute you. Pray for the Instruments of Communion and those with authority to ACT, that they would be given wisdom and courage to do so. They have said that they will, and they've even given us some indication of benchmarks and time frames. September 30. Lambeth '08. Wait, proclaim the truth, suffer, don't presume to have authority you don't have, and don't despair of a godly outcome because the process is not unfolding according to your will. Let the Lord guide it, and when the dust settles, and you have been purified by suffering, then take stock of our situation.

father peter toon on what's most likely to happen

Sadly, I have to say I agree that this seems the most likely scenario:

As things stand in July 2007, the scenario, in my view, that is most likely to happen in the USA is not that there will be the old PECUSA (as a Unitarian Liturgical Church) doing its own thing on its own, and a new "orthodox" Province in the USA, part of a 38 member Global Anglican Communion, proclaiming orthodoxy alongside the degraded old PECUSA. A more likely scenario will be that the old PECUSA continues with a few (by comparison with the liberal majority) conservative dioceses; that several African Provinces have dioceses or networks in the USA (overlapping each other and sometimes competing one with another), that there are all kinds of associations and links of parishes with other overseas bishops; that the number of small jurisdictions of continuing Anglicans of one kind or another continues and increases, even as a few of them unite with one another; and that an increasing number of Anglicans in frustration either cease to be church goers (as happened in a massive way in the 1970s with the introduction of the new liturgies and women priests) or go to Rome or Orthodox or various forms of Protestantism-especially interdenominational churches. To create a new Province in the USA will be exceptionally difficult for it will need in the USA powerful (but rarely experienced) centripetal forces and from overseas all kinds of diplomatic, theological and constitutional help and advice. And the wrath of the old PECUSA will work to make it not happen!

From here. If this is indeed the way things ago, as seems to me most likely, I think Anglicanism will have been vindicated as just another protestant denomination and perhaps it will be time to disband and join other families. A depressing thought. In the meantime, buckle down where you are, and proclaim the Gospel.

catholicity -- part one: the primitive unity

The following was first published in 1947. It is from:

Catholicity:

A Study in the Conflict of Christian Traditions in the West

being a Report presented to His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury

E.S. Abbott
H.J. Carpenter
V.A. Demant
Gregory Dix
T.S. Eliot
A.M. Farrer
F.W. Green
A.G. Herbert
R.C. Mortimer
A.M. Ramsey
A. Reeves
C.H. Smyth
The Bishop of Southampton
L.S. Thornton

Part I, Section 1

It is inevitable that in trying to understand the problems which arise from our divisions we should look back to the primitive unity created by our Lord, and ask what sort of unity this was. It consisted no only in unity of organization or in the promise of a world-wide universality, nor yet in the bond of charity: it consisted rather in a whole via vitae which included belief, worship and morals. It is often remembered that in the seventeenth chapter of St. John our Lord prayed for the unity of His disciples: it is sometimes forgotten, however, in our modern discussions that this prayer for their unity was linked with His prayer for their sanctification in the truth: 'Sanctify them in Thy truth; Thy word is truth'. The unity of Christians, coming as it does from the unity of the Father and the Son, is interwoven with their sanctification in the truth which our Lord delivers.

The unity, in all its aspects, has sprung directly out of the entrance of God into human history in the eschatological event of Redemption. This event includes the age-long preparation of Israel for the Messiah. It has its centre in His birth, life, death and resurrection. It includes no less the church which is His Body, and the Spirit who through this Body brings tinto the world the powers of the age to come. It is vital in our believe that the Church is a part of the eschatological event, and a Divine fact. For the essence of the Church is our Lord, who is both the summing-up of the old Israel, and the head of the new Israel. Thus the members of the church do not constitute the unity themselves: rather they are brought into a unity which is there already. In the words of Archbishop Frederick Temple:

'Men speak as if Christians came first and the Church after: as if the origin of the Church was in the wills of the individuals who composed it. But, on the contrary, throughout the teaching of the Apostles, we see it is the Church that comes first, and the members of it afterwards.... In the New testament... the Kingdom of Heave is already in existence, and men are invited into it. The Church takes its origin, not in the will of man, but in the will of the Lord Jesus Christ.... Everywhere men are called int: they do not come in and make the Church by coming. They are called into that which already exists: they are recognized as members when they are within; but their membership depends on their admission, and not upon their constituting themselves into a body in the sight of the Lord'.

(from the Sermon: Catholicity and Individualism, preached at the consecration of Truro Cathedral.)

To be continued.... Comments so far?

good questions from the aci

From here.

Enhanced Responsibility: What Happened? Three Points and Four Questions in Our Present Season

Facing the possible fracture of the Anglican Communion, the Meeting of Primates met in Dar es Salaam and there issued a Communiqué intended to prevent fragmentation both of the Communion and of The Episcopal Church (TEC) and to "promote healing and reconciliation within the Body of Christ." In particular the Primates agreed to support a pastoral response that included both a temporary Pastoral Council and a Primatial Vicar whose roles would involve maintaining order, oversight, and engagement among various parties in conflict within TEC and North America. Specifically, they agreed that the Pastoral Council would be comprised of five members: two chosen by the Primates, two by the Presiding Bishop of TEC, and one by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Further, the Windsor Bishops were to nominate two people, one of whom would be appointed by the Pastoral Council as Primatial Vicar. This proposal and its details are well-known. It is important to note that the Presiding Bishop of TEC agreed to this scheme. As Archbishop Drexel Gomez has made clear, she did not agree only to present it for further consideration. When she presented the proposal to the House of Bishops of TEC, they rejected the proposal out of hand, and requested that the Standing Committee of TEC do the same. The vehemence of the reaction of the American Bishops has been followed by utter silence on the part of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Presiding Bishop of TEC, the Primates, and the Windsor Bishops. No reason has been given for this silence, and no reason has been given for failure to follow through on the hard and painful work done by the Primates at Dar es Salaam. It is still the case that the Primates can make their appointments, as can the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Presiding Bishop of TEC. It also still the case that the Windsor Bishops can make their nominations to the Pastoral Council. No one with the authority to do so has rescinded these proposals. Further, in the face of silence, the fragmentation of both the Anglican Communion and TEC become increasingly likely possibilities.

From the void created by this silence has emerged the establishment of CANA, discouragement and disarray on the part of those who are committed to the sort of communion presented in the Windsor Report, and increasingly aggressive claims to autonomy on the part of those who hold the leavers of power within TEC.

Given this situation, we would make the following points and raise the following questions:

1. ACI has defended not only a collaborative understanding of the Instruments of Unity, but their integrity as well. The failure of the ABC publicly to state that the Dar es Salaam Communiqué is alive and well has been injurious to our common life. It has also been intimated in certain quarters that the adjudication of the Communiqué will be undertaken by a Joint Steering Committee of the Primates and the ACC. We trust that this rumor is mistaken. The Primates have worked hard and declared their intention, and their recommendations and requests are fully within their remit as an Instrument with enhanced responsibility, whose present character was requested by other Instruments of Communion. Lacking any clear understanding of the precise fate of the Communiqué has left the field open for manipulation and the multiplication of other initiatives, borne of fear, concern, power balancing and so on.

2. ACI has sought to work with the Windsor Report, the Covenant, and within the US, the Windsor Bishops. One can watch with curiosity and concern the proliferating of various groups within the conservative ranks, most recently, a Common Cause College of Bishops (as proposed), CANA, and others. The Anglican Communion Network would appear to have split into those bishops now headed toward the Common Cause College, and those who wish to continue on the Windsor path. But to the degree that the Windsor Bishops have no clarity about the future of the Primates' Tanzanian Communiqué, and hence a comprehensive, ordered response to their Communion life in troubled times, they will collapse altogether. Indeed, one wonders what role they might be expected to exercise in the light of such unclarity.

3. It is our understanding that the recent issuing of Lambeth invitations was done in the light of organizational concerns and the timing of the Archbishop of Canterbury's leave. The ways in which the Archbishop has reserved to himself all manner of options, discernment, and counsel regarding the ultimate character of invitations--which is his right to do--means that speculation about the character of the conference is bound to be only that. Still, it is speculation capable of generating unease and reaction that is not always constructive.


Given the fact that the Primates have been assigned "enhanced responsibility" by the Lambeth Conference itself, and given the fact that no one with the authority to do so has withdrawn their proposal to address the threat of fracture our Communion now faces, and given the fact that the claim made that these proposals do not accord with the Constitution and Canons of TEC remains no more than an unsupported assertion, we ask four questions:

1. The Primates still have warrant to make their appointments to the Pastoral Council. Why have they not done so?

2. The Archbishop of Canterbury still has the authority to make his appointment to the Pastoral
Council. Why has he not done so?

3. The Presiding Bishop of TEC still has authority to make her appointment to the Pastoral Council. Why has she not done so?

4. The Windsor Bishops still have warrant to make their nominations for Primatial Vicar. Why have they not done so?

We believe that the credibility of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Meeting of the Primates, the Presiding Bishop of TEC, and the Windsor Bishops depends upon a speedy answer to these four questions. Some may think us naïve for continuing to think these instruments of unity still have credibility. We have, however, considered the alternatives-all of which portend the end of Anglicanism as a communion of churches. We pray, therefore, that those in whose hands Providence has placed responsibility for the peace, faithfulness, and unity of the church will respond publicly and speedily to these questions that rest so heavily upon the minds and hearts of all who care about the future of the Anglican Communion.

Christopher Seitz
Philip Turner
Ephraim Radner

Officers of the Anglican Communion Institute

insight from archbishop gomez...

The following comments from Archbishop Drexel Gomez, Primate of the West Indies, are from the Church of England Newspaper, via T19. Archbishop Gomez is one of those people who understands whats going on, who understands the stakes -- what we stand to gain, and what we stand to lose.

The more I think about it, the more I think that the fate of the Communion will most likely be decided at the next ECUSA House of Bishops meeting, in September. Of all the many meetings, statements, decisions, etc. over the past four or five years, it seems to me that THAT will be the moment of truth. (And a big part of the significance of the Sept. HoB meeting will be how the "foreign prelates" react to it, which we will know only gradually. So I don't mean that we will KNOW what's going to happen as soon as the HoB releases its statement, but only that what the ECUSA Bishops say at their meeting will fix their fate, and the fate of the Communion.)

The Episcopal Church ‘mishandled the debate on human sexuality’

By George Conger

THE EPISCOPAL Church has mishandled the debate on human sexuality by misleading the Anglican Communion about its intentions to regularise gay bishops and blessings, the Primate of the West Indies said on May 15. By placing autonomy above unity it has brought the Anglican Communion to the brink of collapse, Archbishop Drexel Gomez told the clergy of Central Florida. Archbishop Gomez criticised the leadership of the Episcopal Church for not being entirely straight forward with the Communion. "You just cannot have collegiality," he explained, "if when you meet with your colleagues you don't share."

He also chided the African-led missionary jurisdictions, the AMiA and CANA, operating in the United States, saying they were an unfortunate "anomaly." It was "most unfortunate" that the Episcopal Church had hid its intentions to regularise gay bishops and blessings, Archbishop Gomez said, as it had not seen "fit to share with the rest of the Anglican Communion what it intended on doing." During the 2003 Primates' Meeting in Gramado, Brazil "we had a long discussion on this business of [gay] blessings and samesex unions," he said. But at "no time during the meeting, did [US Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold] even indicate that a situation was developing in the Episcopal Church that would lead to the consecration of Gene Robinson." "It is not good enough as Frank [Griswold] had said that The Episcopal Church has been wrestling with this issue for 30 years and the Spirit has led them to this decision. We were unaware of the problem. It must be a shared discernment if we belong to the body," Archbishop Gomez said. ACC-13 in Nottingham was the "first time any presentation had been made by The Episcopal Church" on these issues, he argued.

At the 2003 emergency Primates' Meeting at Lambeth Palace, "We said unanimously, including Frank Griswold, if The Episcopal Church were to proceed with the consecration of Gene Robinson that it would tear the fabric of the Communion. And yet it proceeded and the fabric has been torn," he said. The consecration of Gene Robinson was "the first time in the history of Christendom that someone has been made a bishop who could not function as a bishop," Archbishop Gomez argued. "Theologically I do not consider him to be a bishop," he said. Bishop Robinson's episcopal ordination was an example of Augustine's argument, Archbishop Gomez stated that "a sacrament could be valid but non efficacious." He "has been sacramentally ordained, validly ordained as a bishop, but he cannot function as a bishop in most of the Anglican Communion."

Archbishop Gomez stated he was also "very concerned" about the formation of rival Anglican jurisdictions in the United States under the sponsorship of overseas primates. These "new groupings are anomalous in Anglicanism" he told Central Florida, adding "I tried hard at the last Primates' Meeting to find an answer to that" difficulty, which "complicates the situation." One of the triumphs of the Tanzania Primates' Meeting, he said, had been the agreement made by the onterventionist primates to turn over their US jurisdictions to an international pastoral council. "We got them to the point where they would stop. This was not easy to achieve," he said. "I thought the House of Bishops would jump at the opportunity" to end foreign interventions, but they "wouldn't look at it." The rejection of the pastoral council by the House of Bishops now makes it "twice as difficult to get this back on the table," Archbishop Gomez said. He also stated the Dar es Salaam Communiqué was the first statement by the Primates where each was asked to give their personal assent.

At prior meetings "we worked by consensus in our decisions," but Archbishop Williams "felt that the decision was so important, so critical" that all should be polled for their views. "Individually [Archbishop Williams] went around and individually every person said yes [to the Communiqué]. [Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori] said yes, but said it would be a difficult sell, but she would try." The question put to the Presiding Bishop was whether she accepted the communiqué, "and Katharine agreed to the proposal." Archbishop Gomez did not expect a decisive response from the House of Bishops to the September 30 deadline for compliance to the Primates' Communiqué. "On the basis of past actions, certainly over the past 10 years, I would presume that the Episcopal Church would seek someway of fudging it. And that would be a consistent pattern," he stated. He told the gathering that he had suggested a September 30 deadline for a response from the House of Bishops. "The intention was to give them two full meetings" before an answer was due, although Archbishop Williams had pressed for more time. The Episcopal Church "will have to make a decision" whether it will remain part of the Anglican Communion. "The official Church speaking through its General Convention places autonomy over its mission. That is the reality we have to face in the Communion," Archbishop Gomez said.

--This article appears in the Church of England Newspaper, May 25 2007 edition, page 7

bishop duncan on various things

I love Bishop Duncan. This is from an interview at Catholic dot org. Read it all here. Via Stand Firm.

How do you respond when people accuse you of dividing the church?

Bishop Robert Duncan: It’s rather like a father in a family who confronts a teenager who’s acting out. And what the other members of the family say is, “Dad, don’t be so hard, you’re dividing our family.” It’s a bizarre argument, but it appeals to the modern heart and mind because it gives the modern heart and mind precisely what it wants.

That is to say, “We ought to be able to do what we want to do.” And the modern Church has no doctrine of sin and no sense of boundaries. So, I divide the church by simply saying: “Well, sin is what human beings are wired to do and from which they’ve been delivered, and the father actually has boundaries, rules and a way he wants us to live because he’s designed and called us to live that way. It’s what’s best for us.”

The other criticism that gets made is that we’re just worked up over sex. That’s not it at all. We’re actually worked up over what scripture says, and in every regard. We’ve been lax about allowing remarriages after divorce. We’ve been lax on what scripture clearly says about human life and its sanctity. We take those positions in morality because of what the word says. Because of what the Lord said.

good perspective on the invites and non-invites to lambeth

Read Sarah Hey's article at Stand Firm. I agree with just about everything she says.

an interesting day at the anglican circus

The plot thickened interestingly today. Lambeth Conference invitations were issued. +New Hampshire was not invited, and both +Robinson and his allies immediately issued several petulant childishnesses in response. ("How dare you?!" etc. and so forth. The first version (?) of Robinson's statement actually used the punctuation "?!". Incredible.) The bishops of CANA and AMiA were also not invited. +Minns issued a measured, thoughtful statement. The press office of ++Abuja also issued a testy statement.

Here's what I think: Williams has done fine. First of all, its his prerogative. Secondly, he is working within the context of, and being guided by, the Windsor Report and the Primates' Meeting Communiques, as he and the Primates have consistently done. Those who are upset about +Minns not being invited (apparently +Minns himself isn't terribly upset) should remind themselves that these invitations are properly viewed as a step along the road to a coherent Anglican ecclesiology, and NOT as some kind of stamp of theological approval for invitees, or of theological disapproval for non-invitees. The fact is, as orthodox as +Minns and Nigeria may be, +Minns' installation was, in fact, a wrench in the careful, costly, and painstaking achievement of the Windsor Report and the various Primates' Meeting communiques (including and especially, most recently, DeS). If CANA is indeed provisional, as Akinola has insisted, then +Minns ought to be willing to sit this one out for the greater good -- even if it is an injustice for him not to be invited (and I don't think it is).

For those of you who see nothing wrong with initiatives like CANA and AMiA, and who are piping mad that +Minns wasn't invited, here's a question: fifty or a hundred years from now, what will stop the Angelus-praying, Sarum-Mass-saying Anglican Archbishop of Ft. Worth from consecrating a bishop in South Carolina because the legitimate Bishop of SC wants all of his priests to swear they believe and love the 39 Articles? I'll tell you what: a pan-Anglican agreement about WHO MAY AUTHORITATIVELY DECIDE what is, and what is not, within the bounds of our common life as Anglicans. Such an agreement, hopefully, will the Covenant be. May it come, and may it come quickly.

In the meantime, don't harass the ABC for being guided by the mind of the Communion as expressed by the Primates who have, as a group, endorsed the Windsor Report, which has asked that stuff like CANA stop happening until we can sort this stuff out -- just as much as it has asked that practicing homosexuals not be made bishops. Lambeth invitations are not about who's better, or who is more correct. They are about how we live together and order our common life. So my advice is: relax. Its okay that a good and godly bishop (Minns) was not invited. Its part of the plot.

big news expected from fort worth this afternoon

Read the prognostications here.

good questions

I think the significance of what's going on now (with CANA, AMiA, etc.) is lost on most, though I and others have tried to point it out. Here is one of the first quasi-profound analyses of the ongoing saga of American Anglicanism that I've seen from the secular media. Read the whole thing here. (Via T-19.) I've often reminded myself that as bad as things may be for us now, they have been worse for others. Think of St. Athanasius and the Arian crisis of the fourth century. I've been reading a biography of St. Gregory Nazianzus, and it was much the same for him. Juridical / ecclesial chaos and political maneuverings left and right, swimming upstream culturally, at odds with secular authority, theological confusion, etc. The best we can do, I think, is to tell the truth within whatever contexts we find ourselves, and strive for personal holiness. That's really all God asks: that we turn to him, and then do our best.

___________

The reason for Akinola’s delay seems to be that he wanted there to be no doubt that the leadership of the Episcopal Church would refuse to comply with the demands of the worldwide Anglican Communion before he acted — especially the demand that it accept a “primatial vicar,” or alternative chief presiding officer, for conservatives. Once the door to a primatial vicar was closed, Akinola offered a Nigerian alternative.

Which leaves observers with certain unanswered questions. Why did Akinola establish his own Nigerian alternative rather than support the already existing Anglican Mission in America established by Archbishop Kolini? What, if anything, will mark the difference between the two missionary initiatives? Why did the Anglican Mission, for its part, send no representative to the consecration? Does this action represent a further fragmentation of the conservative opposition?

Some liberal commentators think so and point to the fact that very few congregations have actually withdrawn from the Episcopal Church. But that comment may miss the real significance of the African initiative — namely, to revitalize Anglicanism in America.

the challenge of communion: vocation deferred: father ephraim radner does it again

If you haven’t read Father Ephraim Radner’s latest essay, Vocation Deferred, do it now. It is long and challenging but, as usual, well worth the time and effort, particularly for those who are concerned about or involved in the ongoing Anglican realignment.

Various people have commented on it. The comments I have read so far are at Stand Firm, and All Too Common.

In what follows, I will speak to a few of the objections to Father Ephraim’s piece that I have read from various friends. I will then offer my view of what Father Ephraim is on about, and why it is absolutely critical that Anglicans of good will take up the issues he raises.

I admit that I really like Father Ephraim's essay. For one thing, it represents one of the precious few constructive projects going on within Anglicanism – and a project with profound ramifications for Christendom at large, given our divisions since 1054. With regard to Anglicanism in particular, Radner’s essay also addresses a very deep and terminal deficiency: that we Anglicans have a radically underdeveloped and attenuated ecclesiology, practically useless. What Radner is getting at (and I agree with him) is that our ecclesiological deficiencies are more fundamental and systemically problematical than the doctrinal / confessional innovations being promulgated by ECUSA and others; that the former are a necessary condition of the latter, and therefore that the doctrinal / confessional problems will be resolvable only if the ecclesiological issues are first addressed.

Those who are concerned about confessional standards (like Texanglican's comments here and Fr Matt Kennedy's here) are right in a sense. But Radner’s project is more fundamental; the problems he is seeking to address must be addressed BEFORE any kind of confessional standards can be upheld by the Communion. For who now, at the Communion level, has the authority to promulgate them? Lambeth Resolutions, as ECUSA has correctly pointed out, are non-binding, etc. Primates ARE, as things currently stand, little more than “foreign prelates” outside their own jurisdictions. That’s not as it should be; but it’s a fact nonetheless. Because the Anglican Communion is an accident of history (though, I believe, at the same time an orchestration of divine providence), its jurisdictions at the national level remain autonomous. And autonomy, as Radner notes, is a fundamentally unchristian principle, radically at odds with the scriptural call to mutual submission and divine heteronomy in Christ. “The very discussion of the church in terms of ‘body parts’ rules out ‘autonomy’ as a working term,” says Radner. Indeed.

The irony is that the practical autonomy of Anglican jurisdictions, while jeopardizing the Communion’s catholicity, has at the same time ensured that the catholicity of Anglican jurisdictions at the local (diocesan) level has remained possible. Where would Fort Worth be without the affirmation, at the Communion level, of the “two integrities” vis-à-vis the ordination of women (most recently in the Panel of Reference’s report on Ft. Worth). Agreeing to disagree has its advantages; but it is proving fatal for the Communion per se. Radner says:

“..the smallest unit of the ‘local’, according to the Report, is the ‘diocese’. This means that bishops are the ‘local’ expression of whole (in the familiar sense of embodying the “whole church” while presiding at the Eucharist).

But the explicitly episcopal character of this representation has profound practical implications, most pointedly underlined when episcopal links are ‘visibly’ severed and ‘mutual recognition’ of episcopal communion is jeopardized or lost.”

If “autonomy” is our fundamental working principle as Anglicans, as many American prelates have touted it as being, how can we meaningfully claim communion in one lord, one faith, one baptism? Saying it doesn’t make it so. And if it is merely affirmed, while having no ramifications in the life of particular churches (provincial or diocesan), then what could communion possibly mean? Indeed it looks as though ECUSA has embraced a fundamentally hateful working definition of “love” – a definition that is basically about apathy with regard to the other. “Live and let live” is its motto, which is radically at odds with what the Lord said: “If you love me, you will keep my commandments,” and again, “My sheep hear my voice and FOLLOW ME.” His gift of communion was not without demands: he gives communion to those who believe in him through the teaching of the Apostles (Jn. 17.20). It is no coincidence that the foil on which turns ECUSA’s refusal of the gift of communion, with its demand of mutual submission, is ECUSA’s refusal to love gays and lesbians with the love of Christ, a love that asks a life-laid-down. And it is no coincidence that ECUSA’s intransigence comes with denials by ECUSA’s leadership of the Son’s unique communion with the Father. Such a denial, increasingly systemic within ECUSA, cuts off the grace of communion at the root.

Radner writes:

“The Windsor Report, in this regard, has forcefully taken up on this vision, and strengthened and nuanced it considerably in a particularly Anglican way by rooting the episcopal character of communion in the commending, teaching, and guarding of Scripture’s authority within the Church.”

This is manifestly true in the rites for ordination to the episcopacy in use in our BCP: “A bishop in God’s holy Church is called to be one with the apostles in… interpreting the Gospel…” and thereby “to guard the faith, unity, and discipline of the Church.” A bishop is explicitly called to be “a faithful pastor and wholesome example for THE ENTIRE FLOCK OF CHRIST.” The rite then goes on to ask the candidate: “Will you SHARE WITH YOUR FELLOW BISHOPS in the government of the WHOLE CHURCH…?” This vision of episcopal communion is totally incompatible with the autonomy demanded by ECUSA’s prelates. Communion requires a submission to theonomy, and thus to radical heteronomy. As Radner puts it:

“It is not homophobia – fear of the ‘same’ (sex) -- that is driving this train away from communion; it is theophobia, the fear of God’s reality; and hence most truly, it is heterophobia, the fear of what is truly ‘other’, that is the culprit.”

Likewise, its no coincidence that the peril in which the Communion now finds itself are the result of ECUSA's insistence on autonomy for a particular class of folks within the Church. I am all too conscious of the sacrifice we are asking of gay and lesbian Christians. I have no doubt that the moral standards to which they are called seem impossibly austere. But the Lord assures us that the impossible holiness to which we are all called, when we embrace it even though it breaks our hearts, mysteriously becomes an easy yoke and a light burden (Mat. 11.30). I have had a few gay friends who embraced the Church’s moral teaching, and it was a powerful witness to me: they left the world and the world’s promises for the sake of Christ. They left the possibility of the consolations of having a companion with whom they could share their lives intimately – for the sake of Christ. And I know its not easy for them, but it is an unspeakably beautiful thing they have embraced, even though it means that they will appear to all eyes to suffer for it – loneliness, etc. It is a powerful witness and call to me, and I am very grateful to them for it, because of what it says about Christ’s call in MY life.

And this is what ECUSA has been called to at a corporate level: to forego its desires for the sake of the Body of Christ. Sadly, they seem to have refused that more difficult, but more beautiful, call. And although we are called to hope and pray for ECUSA’s metanoia, I'm not holding my breath. Nor should anyone else among the orthodox. We must move ahead in answering the call to communion, and hope and pray that ECUSA will join us.

This too is what the unspecified confessionalists in Radner’s essay are called to do: to lay aside their desires for a more theologically correct Communion for the sake of the integrity of the Body. Yes, truth is important, but getting it right about the ordination of women (for Anglo-Catholics), or justification by faith alone (for evangelicals), will mean very little to those who have not known Christ. On the other hand, a corporate life of mutual forbearance and submission in love will mean a great deal to those still in the world – as well as for our brothers and sisters in other communions who are concerned about the visible unity of the Body of Christ, and who also are looking for ways to inhabit the Lord's gift of communion. Radner puts it this way: the Anglican Communion can be a school…

“…for the koinonia that can only arise from a specific form of evangelism and ecclesial life that, through its outgoing reach, raises up the challenges of the Body of Christ as judgment and opportunity both.”

This is where all Anglicans are called to be “Prayer Book Catholics”, where we must admit the upbuilding reality of the English Reformation. Father Ephraim and Archbishop Rowan both put this in terms of the Benedictine Patrimony of English Christianity, from the days of Augustine, which was conserved uniquely through the English Reformation in the form of an ecclesial life of truly Common Prayer. Radner notes three elements of the Anglican ecclesial life:

“…the structuring of time away from simple production and entertainment, and towards human growth (in and through God); the character of obedience as mutual discernment and support within an ordered life in common; the commitment to full participation by all – the offering and receiving of support -- within the common life.”

What must happen now is a formal, PAN-ANGLICAN (Communion-wide) ordering of our ecclesial life of Common Prayer, a formal ordering that conserves Prayer Book Catholicism (in the best sense) in an intra-provincial way for the Communion as a whole. For the principles that we have inherited were designed for the Church of England, and have spread by historical accident and, as I noted, by divine providence far beyond the juridical borders of the Church of England.

This, I suggest, is a positive vision for the vocation of Anglicanism within the context of the whole Body of Christ, of which we have only ever claimed to be but a part. Apart from the particular agendas of the liberals, evangelicals, and catholics within the Communion, this ecclesial vision seems to be the only game in town, and indeed the only game at a catholic (= universal) level worth playing. I for one hope that some of us are still willing to take up the challenge, that the world may believe that the Father sent the Son.

from the anglican communion institute (father ephraim radner, et alia)

We are about to enter a church struggle of fearful proportions, and to assume that business will go on as usual is quite unrealistic.

Read it all here. As usual, its very good.

more from father ephraim radner on the house of bishops' statement

Father Ephraim is on a roll. His (long) most recent reply to the House of Bishops' Statement is well (well, WELL) worth taking the time to read in full. Father Ephraim's analysis is absolutely devastating. I would love (love, LOVE) to read a liberal / ECUSA response to Father Ephraim here. He takes the bishops to task, point by point, and shows their statement to be, perhaps more than anything, incoherent -- but also filled with anachronism, theological error, historical inaccuracy, balled-faced animus, arrogance, and deception. Do read the whole thing. It is, in Father WB's opinion, the best and clearest piece on the ECUSA / Communion situation yet produced by anyone. Seriously.

[A minor quibble: Father Ephraim says that the House of Bishops' Statement is in fact, contrary to what has generally been said, unclear. I think that its clarity is in that it shows that the bishops are unwilling to reverse course, and therefore that it clearly reveals (1) the urgent necessity that provision be made for orthodox Anglicans in America, and (2) that the bishops will not cooperate with the Communion on the presenting issues. What is UNCLEAR is the American bishops (ir)rationale.]

Here are some excerpts (though there is much [much, MUCH] more in the document... do read it all!):

...either the matter of “full inclusion” (including to the episcopacy and same-sex unions and blessings) is a matter “indifferent”, and hence is open to compromise for the sake of the Communion; or the matter is one of essential doctrine and discipline, and therefore the bishops should simply confess openly their inability to tolerate and accept alternative views (including within the Communion).... What makes no sense is to claim there is “no going back” because of the essential evangelical issues at stake, yet also to proclaim a willingness to engage in open debate and possible new learning and readjustments of current discipline.

Re: the House of Bishops' discovery of a "generous Prayer Book orthodoxy" --

If the Prayer Book tradition has an “orthodoxy”, it is neither generous nor ungenerous, but sui generis, and that is what should be examined, not some myth of a pluralist commonwealth of religious questers that seems to lie behind the bishops’ vision.

Re: the House of Bishops' criticism of the primates in terms of the latter's supposed over-willingness to "break relationship" in a cultural climate where broken relationships are a big problem --

There is, in fact, something morally unsettling about the Statement’s attempt to appropriate the categories of fidelity, even of marital fidelity, in their argument against the Primates. Much like their attempt to co-opt the language of anti-colonialism, it is contradicted by the facts on the ground, some of them embodied personally by bishops themselves.

Finally, there is this:

With whom and under whom do we now fulfill our vows made before God? It is no longer possible to receive equally the claim made by the House of Bishops to be faithful to the apostolic trust, along with the claim by the “Church throughout the world” that this trust demands another set of actions and commitments. What then shall we do?

Our bishops have left us in a grievous and parlous position. It is true, as our bishops have said, that those who wish to “divide” the church are few. The concerns expressed above come from clergy, like myself, who have long labored to maintain the unity of TEC, internally and with the Communion. We do not wish what the bishops themselves, few in number though they be, are pressing upon us.

Let us who care for Christ’s embrace of Anglican Christianity in Communion redouble our prayers and our efforts to see that the will of Dar es Salaam unfold in God’s good time, and not be thwarted by another unilateral dictation of how the Communion ought to mirror the incoherent image of TEC. God help us. Much is at stake here. It is time to do all we can to assure that the Instruments of Communion be able to do their work unhindered. If TEC’s bishops do not wish to be a part of this, that is their decision. Let them have the courage of their convictions; but let us not quietly accept their invented Anglican Christianity that never existed anywhere before.

simul haereticus et anglicanus

If you'd like to mortify your intellect during these last days of Lent, go to Stand Firm and read the most unedifying and pointless post I've ever seen there: David Ould's anti-catholic polemic masquerading as a soliloquy on justification by faith.

For fun, count the synonyms for "poop" in the post and the ensuing comments. Its probably the most instructive engagement you could have with this little essay.

a great piece from father ephraim radner

Read it all here.

He seems to think its Game Over for the orthodox in ECUSA. He has been one of the most coherent and conciliatory voices among the orthodox -- definitely not a hot head. That he thinks its over says much about the gravity of the situation in light of the House of Bishops' rejection of the Primates' requests.

So what now? In my view, the Communion MUST establish the Pastoral Council / Primatial Vicar, now clearly without the help or input of the ECUSA hierarchy. If the councils of the Communion do nothing, then Anglicanism in American will be lost... for years or decades, if not forever. The orthodox will continue to bleed off into a myriad independent and incoherent jurisdictions, or will simply move away from Anglicanism altogether, to Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy, etc. Moreover, if ECUSA is allowed to get away with their intractable arrogance, then Anglicanism will be betrayed as an incoherent theological joke -- one in which a thousand mutually exclusive doctrines are held and taught in the name of plurality.

The ONLY way forward, I believe, is for the Primates and the ABC to act NOW (by which I mean something like "by the end of this year") 1) to allow ECUSA to go its on way, apart from the Communion, and 2) to provide a coherent place / primatial jurisdiction for the orthodox who wish to remain in communion with Canterbury and the rest. Lastly (and this will be the most difficult and unlikely): the American orthodox -- Network dioceses, CANA, AMiA, etc. -- must band together and agree to abide by the Primates and the ABC's decisions.

There are a lot of if's and unknowns here. But they must be sorted out very quickly, in my view, or American Anglicanism will be lost.

PS: Now is the time for action by the orthodox BISHOPS in ECUSA. Its time for them to stand up and start acting like orthodox bishops. Its time for them to act concertedly, coherently, unitedly, and humbly -- as the shepherds God has called them to be, and to whom He has given His Holy Spirit for that purpose. The orthodox bishops must come together and show bold leadership. If they do, their priests and laity will follow them. If they don't, all will almost certainly be lost.

the episcopal church house of bishops rejects the primates' requests

Read all about it here (or elsewhere). You can read the actual thing here. Their statements were filled with the tired rhetoric about the leadings of someone they think is the Holy Ghost (its a ghost alright: the Zeitgeist), and they even said that the Primates' requests in the Dar es Salaam Communique were a return to "colonialism." How pathetic.

"Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter." - Isaiah the Prophet

And again:

"A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him saying, 'You are mad, you are not like us'." - Saint Anthony the Great

george weigel: the end of the anglican communion

From here and elsewhere. Among other things he writes:

In the wake of the Second Vatican Council, as hopes for ecclesial reconciliation between Rome and Canterbury ran high, it seemed, briefly, as if Cardinal Newman might have been wrong. With the Anglican Communion now fracturing into a gaggle of quarreling communities no longer in communion with each other, it looks as if Newman had the deeper insight into what King Henry VIII wrought.

To which I say: this is a premature judgment. Its not over till its over. Pace Weigel, the Communion has not yet fractured into "a gaggle of quarreling communities no longer in communion with each other." Several Anglican Provinces have declared that their communion with ECUSA, specifically, is broken; several more have declared that their communion with ECUSA is impaired. But apart from ECUSA, Anglicanism remains pretty robust and cohesive. Fragmentation of the kind described by Weigel is certainly a grave danger for the Anglican Communion, and its one possible outcome of the real mess we're in. But it hasn't happened yet. And frankly it is immensely disheartening to have so many well-intentioned Christians (many of them former Anglicans) circling around the wounded body of Anglicanism, licking their lips, waiting for the vindication of Newman's conversion, which they seem to think can only come when Anglicanism is dead and eviscerated, and all the world can smell the putrefaction.

Well hold your horses. Another possible outcome of our real mess is that the Anglican Communion will roundly censure and discipline the North Americans, and will find ways of strengthening the Communion's common life in a covenantal / conciliar way that would seem to many to be a compelling (and non-papal) counterpoint to Newman's predication of Protestantism (in its pejorative sense) to the essence of Anglicanism. Is this why many Roman Catholics seem so eager for Anglicanism to fail, and to be seen to fail? Because a reformation of Anglicanism in a fundamentally catholic direction would throw a wrench into their ecclesiology, or at least into their eccelesiological apologetics?

Look, sometimes I think about Baptists, et alia, the way that Weigel seems to be thinking about Anglicanism in this piece. That non-catholic instantiations of Christianity are inconvenient, distracting, and better off dead. But then I remind myself that the Reformation was not a surprise to God. As distasteful as most of Protestant rhetoric and piety are to me, these people are Christians too. And their presence in the world falls within the purview of the sovereignty of God and the Holy Spirit's work in Western culture. My job is not to be a fly in Baptist ointment, but to be the best Christian I can be with the light with which I have been graced, and to tell Baptists (and Roman Catholics) the story of God's reign in my heart -- and not to tell them how I would have God reign in their heart. Is this syncretic? No. I want the same thing for them that I want for myself: for Jesus Christ to be Lord of life in whatever way seems best to him.

But to return to the Weigel piece, next he says:

As Canada's finest Catholic commentator, Father Raymond de Souza, wrote last year (reflecting on the attempts of Dr. Rowan Williams, archbishop of Canterbury, to hold the Anglican Communion together), "Some [Anglicans] argue that [homosexual acts] are sinful; others that they are sacramental. This is an unbridgeable gap and it appears impossible for Canterbury to straddle it, try as he might." Dr. Williams has tried mightily; he seems to have failed.

Again, this isn't quite right. Dr. Williams has not been attempting to bridge a gap between homosexual acts being at once sinful and sacramental. Dr. Williams may not be right about everything, but I think he's yet capable of judging a patent absurdity when it stares him in the face. And this gets at the heart of Dr. Williams' fundamental catholicity: he's willing to submit his judgment to that of Holy Church. He has consistently said as Archbishop of Canterbury, as have the Primates and the other instruments of our Communion, that the Anglican teaching on licit sexual activity is clear and unambiguous: sex is licit within the sacramental context of lifelong marriage between one man and one woman, the end. For the rest of us, abstinence from sex is the name of the game. There is no ambiguity here. There is no attempt to dwell in some irrational aporia. Here is the Anglican teaching for all the world to see. If Americans wish to be Anglicans, they must conform themselves to this teaching. That's what Windsor, Dromantine, and Tanzania were about.

Could Anglicanism crack open and implode thanks to the ecclesiological stress laid on it by ECUSA's innovations? Certainly. But it hasn't yet. Let's not jump the gun. There is a heroic and prayerful effort under way to prevent just such a cracking. I invite would-be gadflies to join us in working and praying for Anglican (and pan-Christian) unity, that the world may see and know that the Father sent the Son. Apart from that, be the best and humblest Christian you can be.

father ephraim radner comments (some more) on the covenant

Read the whole thing here. Interesting deliberations around the catholicity of Anglicanism and the forthcoming, revised Covenant. Father Ephraim was responding to this comment from Father Michael Poon. Father Michael was in turn responding to this, Father Epharim's initial comments on the Covenant. What do you think?

Dr. Poon’s pointing to the central element of common prayer and the Prayer Book as the doxological center and context for Anglican hearing of Scripture in its “right interpretation” accurately exposes the complexity of this “old” and “new”. He calls for a return to the “ancient way”. And he is right: the Book of Common Prayer no longer functions in this anchoring and formative way for Anglicans as a Communion, much to our detriment. But I have already heard faithful (and centrally “orthodox”) Anglicans of a more catholic tradition criticize the Proposed Covenant precisely because it lifts up the 1662 Prayer Book as a “guiding” document for the Communion as a whole. Even leaving aside modern revisions and elaborations and perhaps perversions of the Prayer Book tradition within many evangelical and non-evangelical churches around the world, designating a liturgical form that is theologically oriented towards a fairly Protestant outlook (at least within an Anglican range) is seen by many “Anglo-Catholics” as highly problematic; and especially among newer churches who have never perhaps even been ordered within a history that attaches directly to the 1662 English edition. So there is a large question here: Is the “ancient way” closer to the pre-Reformation order of eucharistic life? Or is it to be found in a gathering of the Communion around an originating liturgical order whose focus in, e.g. 1662, is to be viewed as providentially integrating of our common life, even if not directly constructive of it in this or that local or national church? This is a central concern that, perhaps, the Covenant will need to address more substantively. I personally believe in the latter, and understand the draft Covenant to do the same; but I recognize that it will require some common discussion, prayer, and—frankly – effort and charity for this to be agreed upon. We will agree, I hope, as impelled by God; but that impulsion will be recognized only in a certain kind of shared openness.

Here is where the conciliar character of the Proposed Covenant is perhaps more prominent than Dr. Poon would like: the form of “Doxology-orthodoxy, right interpretation of the Word, and right and proper praise [that] underpin Christian ecclesial life” is not up for grabs, is not some human invention, but it must nonetheless be recognized and embraced by the human followers of Christ within the church. Conciliar life undergirds covenant not because councils and their members do not “err”; just the opposite. Conciliar life undergirds covenant because it is the formal agency of the erring Church’s act of constant re-conversion to the truth. It does not supersede the truth; it apprehends it within the historical life of the Church, which includes her many failures. Is there a place in this – and not simply a possible place but even a necessary place – for learning from the Global South? For all the failures and continuing failures, I believe this is already happening, precisely through these conciliar structures that have been emerging over the past few years. In this sense, the “status quo” is not so much being calcified as it is, in its uncovering of its authentic roots and purposes, being transformed.