Aiya Iluvatar

Cage match on the Anglican Right

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+

Windsor Report, anglican, episcopal, gene robinson, religion

The Schism Begins

It was not unexpected, but still disheartening to read of the votes of the Diocese of San Joaquin to leave the Episcopal Church and realign with the Province of the Southern Cone. Of course, most of us in the Episcopal Church would say that since a diocese is created by General Convention and is not its own independent entity, that the PEOPLE of the diocese can leave, but the diocese proper cannot. In any case, the legalities will be wrangled out over the course of years if not decades at the cost of millions of dollars. The Episcopal Church simply cannot let the schismatics take all the property and go, since there is a sizable number of parishes that have indicated they wish to remain in the Episcopal Church and since the Diocese of San Joaquin was an investment on the part of the national church.

More disturbing to me is the spiritual dimension of this. The Powers and Principalities seem to have won a round by once again dividing the church over something that simply is not core to the Christian faith. Oh, Bp. Schofield makes claims that the Episcopal Church is now following a "New Faith" and that we have abandoned historic Christianity, but I'll again ask the two questions:

1. Who are these revisionists he speaks of?
2. Does anyone with a basic grasp of Episcopal Church history actually think that Unitarian leanings are new? Unitarian thought has been a minority opinion within the Episcopal Church since before the American Revolution, but it does not reflect majority opinion.

If they beleive the Episcopal Church is awash in heterodoxy, it's because they have withdrawn for so long into their conservative ghettos that they can't see what's actually going on in the church right now (not twenty years ago), which from my perspective seems to be a post-modern embrace of "Generous Orthodoxy." Schofield and the other schisimatics can attempt to paint it any way they want, but what it really comes down to is disagreement over the ordination of women and issues of human sexuality.

It's generally agreed that schism is completely unacceptable except in matters essential to salvation. When Martin Luther stood against the church's Magesterium, the most important point was the abuse of the sale of indulgences, which put a price tag on salvation. Women's ordination is accepted in principle by the entire Anglican Communion, and it's very hard to argue that the current debated questions about human sexuality rise to the same level of doctrine as the Incarnation, Trinity, or Resurrection. Therefore, schisimatics need to fabricate (for themselves as much as for others) the fiction that somehow the entire Episcopal Church is heading down a heretical path.

This allows schismatic clergy to feel justified in their violation of their ordination vows that they will be "loyal to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of Christ as this Church has received them." The honorable course would be to renounce their vows, since they are no longer loyal to the doctrine and discipline of Christ as our constitution, canons and General Convention set them forth. Scofield seems to think that his vows meant "As I believe the doctrine and discipline ought to be." His writing seems to be very self-centered, despite his rhetoric about "catholicity."

It's no wonder that the Vatican has recently dashed hopes that disaffected Anglicans might be taken in as a personal prelature of the Pope. If people leave the Episcopal Church which interferes very little with internal diocesan politics, how could they be Roman Catholic, whose magesterium is much more hands-on? (It needs to be pointed out that NO ONE was being forced to elect gay bishops or perform same-sex blessings. In fact, the Episcopal Church has been remarkably patient with Bps. Iker and Schofield over the issue of women's ordination. Some analysts point out that the rhetoric would be nowhere near as heated were it not for the interference of outside political groups, which see a value in breaking apart the mainline denominations.)

I grieve for the church. It is really too bad that the concept of "Loyal Opposition" has given way to "I'm taking my ball and going home." I think it reflects current American politics more than any scriptural or theological principle. At a Gen-X clergy gathering a decade ago, a colleague of mine told then Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold, "Just don't let the church be destroyed before we get a chance at it." It looks as if we're not going to get that chance, at least with the Episcopal Church as we know it.

David+

New Call

A letter sent out to my parish a couple of weeks ago....

Dear Beloved People of God,

For nearly five years, I have started every letter and newsletter article with this salutation. It reflects two truths. First, that you are truly beloved by God, who desires each one of us more than we can ask or imagine. Secondly, that I have loved you as a priest and pastor - sometimes imperfectly, but always joyfully. I have felt that love returned many times over in word and action. The members of St. Johns have opened their hearts to Micky, Brendan, Brigid and I, and we are aware of how richly God has blessed us here. It is our mindfulness of this community of love and support that makes writing this letter so difficult.

The vestry of St. Matthias church in Waukesha, Wisconsin has extended a call to me to be their next rector and after much thought and prayer, I have decided to accept. My acceptance has nothing to do with deficiency on the part of St. John’s. Indeed, I was not actively looking for a position, but my name was submitted simultaneously by both a member of the congregation and by the Bishop of Milwaukee to their search committee. Since then, it has become apparent that my skill set and inclinations are a very close match to their needs as they face a very challenging time in the life of their parish. After discernment involving prayer and discussions with family and trusted mentors, I believe that I am being called by the Holy Spirit to this challenge.

My last Sunday at St. Johns will be December 30^th. We plan to move in early January and I will assume my new position in the middle of that month. In the meantime, your vestry will begin to form a search committee to find and call your next rector.

I can say without reservation that St. Johns has been the most unique and alive congregation I have ever been associated with. The solid liturgy, amazing outreach, and commitment to the stewardship of God’s creation (symbolized by the Memorial Garden) are all reflections of an outstanding family of Christians who take their baptismal covenant seriously and do not rely on a person in a collar to drive them forward. I am very aware of the fact that no other congregation I serve during my career may be so active. It has been my extraordinary pleasure to serve you, and I assure you that St. Johns will always serve me as a template for what a church with an empowered laity really can do.

Thank you for loving us. I will always keep St. Johns and her people in my prayers.

Yours in Christ,

David