With the Recently announced GAFCON conference, the response for clarification from Dr. Michael Poon, the angry reply from either ++Akinola or +Anderson (depending on what you think about MS Word Metadata) and Poon's well-thought out reply, it becomes apparent that things are not copacetic in the Global South. Pluralist chalks this up to Militant Tendencies. FatherJones rightly applauds those conservatives like Poon and Ephraim Radner who are committed to an open, honest debate and building up the Anglican Communion. I add my applause, even though I might not agree with their conclusions.
My personal thesis is this - it's historically time for another Puritan exodus from the Anglican family. The Puritans of the 18th century didn't believe the Church of England had reformed itself far enough and wanted more reform along the lines of Geneva. Anglicanism was too "loosey-goosey" for them. When some of them left England on the Mayflower to land in Plymouth, they didn't go seeking "religious freedom" in a broad sense. They went seeking the ability to create a theocracy based on Puritan principles and they did so. You have only to read the history of the persecution of Anglicans in Connecticut to see that the Puritan's religious tolerance only extended to themselves.
Since then, Anglicanism has undergone the Tractarian, Ritualist and Liturgical movements, making the church much more catholic and re-defining many of those who would have been called "evangelicals" in the eighteenth century as being puritanical. In addition, the rise of fundamentalism and literalism have had their effect on the Anglican family, bringing people into the Anglican fold who have never heard of the Via Media and see their local Episcopal Church as a kind of "High Church Southern Baptist" congregation.
In addition to these "Neo-Puritans," there are "Neo-Ritualists" who are the Anglo-Catholic extreme. They still largely buy into the "Gin and Lace" culture of Victorian Anglo-Catholicism, and refuse to see that the current state of sacramentality in the Anglican Communion as the fulfillment of a Tractarian dream that might have kept even Newmann in the fold.
There have always been schismatics within these camps, but since the Episcopal Church does not enforce a lot in terms of ritual or doctrine on it's constituent dioceses, their voices have usually been minorities. This worked as long as there was not a "wedge issue" that could be used by the extremists in these camps. With the +GR ordination and the internet, the schismatics finally have the clout they need to form interest in a new Mayflower journey - except that this one heads towards more episcopal authority rather than away from it (something the Neo-Puritans may come to regret.)
The most distressing part of watching this unfold for me has not been the debate over human sexuality - that's a natural part of hermeneutics and moral reasoning. It has been watching the extreme right act as if schism was a foregone and indeed desirable conclusion. (Yes, there is some of this on the extreme left as well, but much less.) General Convention 2006 was the eye-opener for me. I watched the Diocese of Fort Worth keep only the minimal number of deputies on the floor and petulantly vote "NO!" on about everything. I heard +Duncan say repeatedly that he "regretfully" thought schism was the only option, and got the distinct impression that he was not listening to anyone else. I saw the extreme right mobilize to attempt to keep B033 off the floor of the House of Deputies - something that only makes sense if no response at all serves some already-decided political end.
In short, maybe Anglicanism has become too broad to hold together. To be Anglican, IMHO, is to buy into the Via Media of the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral, accepting that all else might not be adiaphora, but is not core to our belief. The Neo-Puritans and Neo-Tractarians have additional (and sometimes contradictory) things that they think should be core doctrine, and believe that they cannot sit at the table with anyone who does not share the exact same set of beliefs. It is that last assertion that sets them apart from the traditional Anglicanism of the Elizabethan Compromise.
Is it possible that Anglicanism has reached the breaking point, becoming too unwieldy with people of extreme belief who hold that compromise has no part in religion? I begin to think more and more that this is the case, and that the Neo-Puritan (and Neo-Tractarian) exodus was unavoidable. I expect that it will not end any better than the first Mayflower experiment, which did not end as the Puritan utopia it's leaders desired, but as a pluralist New England state that stands for everything the original Puritans would have hated.
David+
I would just like to say, I really like this site. Especially the icon of Blessed John Ronald at the masthead...
So did my friend.
I live in a vicarage in Dorset, England. I am a member of the Church of England and the Tolkien Society, and recently I joined the Mythopoeic Society as I am trying to broaden my mind a little...
Posted by: Julie Sinclair | April 24, 2008 at 12:52 PM