So here’s the deal, where the heck are we as a Church (TEC), as a Communion, as a body within the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, as simple Christians living in a hurting world full of chaos and confusion?
I don’t know. I have all kinds of thoughts as certain segments of The Episcopal Church in the United States (TEC-USA) leave and attempt to take the assets with them, as the California Supreme Court rules that the departing parishes in the Diocese of Los Angeles still belong to the diocese, as other parts of TEC-USA depart to form a new Continuing Anglican denomination in North America that they believe will overwhelm TEC-USA, as Israelis and Palestinians are being killed and as people are starving to death with no hope. All that.
Churches and denominations in the U.S. and many other parts of the world have fallen so far from the call of God to be a people living out the Way of Christ. We are so caught up in socio-politics/theo-politics and our own insecurities that we demand “fact” when no such fact exists, only faith in a determined belief. We depend on this world’s way of understanding and dealing with things rather than on God.
What do we do? Our focus has moved from that which is the beginning point from which all other stuff flows. Too many people who truly want to be engaged in their faith and seeking God have simply left organized religion, because organized religion is too preoccupied with things other than engagement of the person with the Spirit of God. If we were institutionally serious about engagement with God, we wouldn’t be in the mess we are in. That is the truth, as much as too many of us don’t want to face that truth. Instead of “personal relationship” (loving God with all our hearts, minds, and souls) and maturing in such a relationship (being transformed into the image of Christ), we put our faith in precepts and lists to check off and stereotypes.
Here is the way I see it at the moment: There are things going on around us that right now we have no idea whether we are acting/thinking/believing correctly or not – according to the better will of God. Only in hindsight will we know. If we want to know Truth we have to admit, and I mean really admit, that we can be absolutely wrong and be willing to listen and change. Otherwise, we are only seeking confirmation of what we have already determined to believe, whether honestly true or not. Only in hindsight will we know for sure – and perhaps not know for sure until the next generation. We have to get out of the business of asserting our “rights” and get back into the business of giving up everything. The focus can be to love God with all that we are and have and focusing on the betterment of our neighbors as we love them not as a political campaign or a social project but as people made in the very image of God as we attempt to love ourselves beyond our own insecurity and self-doubt. This isn’t possible without engagement with the Spirit of God. This isn’t possible without God’s help. It has nothing to do with politics or social policy of a particular kind or theory.
Loving God and neighbor is not about political-correctness or identity-politics or personal rights. Loving God is about finding ourselves by giving up ourselves.
An example – the spirit or ethos of Anglicanism (and this is only my thinking at the moment): Anglicanism is not at all about whether everyone is invited to sit at the table or not. Anglicanism isn’t about whether anyone has the right to receive communion or not. Anglicanism isn’t about whether we are mulit-cultural, multi-lingual, multi-ethnic, multi-generational,multi-sexual, or multi-anything. Anglicanism isn’t at all about whether we are relevant or not. Anglicanism isn’t at all about whether women have the right to Holy Orders or not. Anglicanism isn’t about whether gays are included or not. Anglicanism isn’t about whether war in Iraq is legitimate or not or whether Americans are baby-killers or defenders of liberty and freedom. Anglicanism has nothing to do with the advocacy of Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, democracy, monarchies, civil rights, food distribution policy, foreign debt relief, or the Millennium Development Goals. The ideas of all these things have often supplanted what the essence of being a Christian or an Anglican is about.
Anglicanism is not about whether people feel welcome, feel affirmed, feel slighted or abused, or feel that singing in the choir is the best thing since sliced bread. Anglicanism isn’t about whether some people prefer Reformed form of Church or Catholic form of Church. Christianity is not about any of those things either, despite what much of the institutional Church and organized religious keep groping for.
Anglicanism is distinguished within greater Christianity by its willingness to make room for the arguments revolving around all those things and the strong beliefs regarding each, yet we all still come around to come together for common prayer and common fellowship despite our differences. Within Anglicanism, the freedom of wrestling with the questions and doubts in all their forms and difficulties is not stymied or even discouraged, but allowed. Does this Church believe anything? Of course! But, this Church is hesitant to demand capitulation to any one theological or pietistic preference or confession, no matter how convinced certain groups or individuals are regarding God’s view of such things.
We know in part; we understand the things of God no better than we clearly see the landscape through a glass darkly. Too many of us are unwilling to accept such limits in our understanding or vision. Some of us must assert without qualification or question or doubt that this one perspective is Absolute – is God’s very way of thinking. Some of us in order to feel special or good about ourselves (rather than loving ourselves) must then condemn all those others who do not align with our perspective, our theory, our belief or position that we cannot perceive as being anything other than God’s determined “fact.”
I have strong beliefs. I’m opinionated. I think at this point that I’m correct, in my very limited knowledge and understanding. Yet, I am also willing to admit in my limited state that I can be completely wrong. I am but a worm. What I hold most dear can be completely wrong, but if I want to honestly know Truth, I cannot cling to anything other than perhaps my belief in the source of all Truth. I am a worm that perhaps can be made to be wise. By the grace of God.
For what it’s worth…
Category Archives: the episcopal church
A New Denomination, Finally
Here is how Christianity Today begins to describe this ostentatious event:
In a history-making gesture, conservative evangelical Anglicans, deeply alienated by the decline of the U.S. denomination, sounded a shofar to herald the creation of the Anglican Church of North America.
On a snowy Wednesday evening, about 1,000 worshipers, mostly from the U.S. and Canada, gathered in Wheaton, Illinois, for a worship service to celebrate the creation of the new entity, which comprises 656 congregations, 800 clergy, 30 bishops, and 100,000 people in regular worship. They represent the evangelical, charismatic, and Anglo-Catholic traditions within Anglicanism. (Source)
Well, first of all, I didn’t know that this new denomination and its members were alienated by the “decline of the U.S. denomination,” unless theological and pietistic plurality is considered “decline.” And, they do have members that represent these different Anglican traditions, but certainly not all faithful “evangelical… Anglo-Catholic†Episcopalians/Anglicans have joined up (alright, they may represent all Charismatics). Anyway…
So, there is now a new denomination (almost) coming out of the Common Cause Partnership and now within the Continuing Anglican Movement (here is a llist of all the different “Anglican” groups that are saving Anglicanism). It is called the “Anglican Church of North American.” They (actually in a statement by the new archbishop-to-be Bob Duncan, but I’m sure shared by most of the estimated 100,000 or so members) that this new group will eventually displace The Episcopal Church in the U.S.A. According to Bob Duncan, “The Lord is displacing the Episcopal Church.” Perhaps, but I suspect the people of The Reformed Episcopal Church, of the Anglican Province of Christ the King, of the Traditional Anglican Communion, etc., had similar thoughts when they broke away and created a newer, purer “Anglican” expression in the U.S.
This new denomination will have much more support in their efforts from around the world than the previous breakaway groups (even considering CANA or AMiA). The time-tested Anglican structures and means of conflict resolution are under great stress and are in some cases breaking down and being replaced with a means of solving problems that will only result in continued division and diversion. Ultimately, whether this new denomination has a better go at supplanting The Episcopal Church as the Anglican Communion structure in the U.S. (or the Anglican Church of Canada) than did the other past attempts is yet to be seen.
I was talking with a guy who develops apps for the iPhone a while back about the effects the Internet has had on “community.” I commented that a negative aspect is being realized right now in the Anglican Communion due to the speed and ease of communication and interaction made available by the Internet. In times past when controversial decisions were made locally, there was time to consider, wrestle, and perhaps reform monumental changes in structure or theology within an individual Province before it became a breaking issue around the world. Now, there is no time for patience consideration and allowance for slow and reasoned process to work. Today, we have immediate international involvement in local issues and we want resolution NOW without regard to the fact that this stuff just takes a long time to resolve. So, we break apart because special-interest groups that are small and fringe can wield far more power and influence with a Website and e-mail.
A loud and continual drumbeat of “the sky is falling†gets far wider consideration and involvement than before. With our new found propensity to go to news sources that generally confirm our preconceived notions (less troublesome challenges to what we want to believe), we find it is harder to get fair hearings and reasoned debate. Conclusions are already drawn and propagated world-wide.
The leadership of this newish denomination justifies itself by attempts to establish grand linkages back to the Protestant Reformation. Today’s Anglican Communion Churches in the U.S. and Canada (and other provinces) are compared to the then Roman Catholic Church in its corruption and apostasy, and today’s reformers likened themselves to figures of the earlier Reformation (how about Ikar=Luther; Schofield=Cranmer; Ackerman=Calvin; Nims=Zwingli; Duncan=Menno Simons or Wesley – who knows?). I really think they overplay their hand by likening themselves and their activities to such reformers that “saved Christianity.” Interestingly, even some Protestant academics and theologians are rethinking whether the Reformation, as it played out, was really a good thing or not for the Christian faith in the West.
My final rambling comment has to do with the continued mantra of justification for schism (or separation) by this group being due to the apostasy of The Episcopal Church as proven by the decline in members – in their purity they will supplant by numeric growth the apostate, declining Episcopal Church in the U.S.A. Now, while I certainly agree that The Episcopal Church has declined in numbers over the last few decades for various reasons, including disarray in its common theology and praxis, the claim that the decline is proof of its apostasy is disingenuous. Why?, because Christianity is in decline in the U.S. (and the West), period. Even the Southern Baptists are worried about their own decline; even the Assemblies of God are wondering what to do about their growth stagnation. This is not the case in Africa countries were most Christian groups are honestly growing. However, growth in Africa does not translate to the correctness of theology or practice in Africa being transplanted world-wide. If it did, the demand might be that we all become Prosperity-teaching Charismatics.
There are a number of church bodies in the U.S. that are certainly growing, but generally this growth reflects individuals moving from one church to another, not numeric growth by the unchurched or non-Christians joining the ranks (getting them heathens saved). Growth within American Evangelicalism (Anglican or otherwise) is generally the moving of furniture from one room to another and not the bringing in of new pieces from outside. From my experience within American Evangelicalism and within The Episcopal Church, I witness far more non-Christians investigating the faith or disillusioned Christians trying to reconnect with God coming to The Episcopal Church than I ever did within American Evangelicalism. That is my experience, and I am sure lots of people will have other opinions.
Great problems and inconsistencies within The Episcopal Church must be dealt with honestly and forthrightly (which often doesn’t happen), but the schismatic groups need to simply quit using the decline in numbers as proof of their negative assertions about The Episcopal Church and their need to form a “restored” or “purer” or “reformed” Anglican presence within North America. It plays well with their adherents for the end game, but doesn’t boost their argument and probably won’t help them realize their goal.
Well, finally the new denomination is established. No more pretense. We will see what happens from here on out.
The players of the game are the same
Here is what I’m coming to think, and I’m just thinking out loud here: The players in this Anglican/Episcopalian war of theology and ecclesiology are playing the game in the same way because they come from and are acting out of the same generationally specific American-cultural. They were all formed within the same culture, and act within the same “rules,” even if approaching the troubling issues from different angles. Whether liberal or conservative, reasserter or reappraiser (if those words are still used), those who are intent on imposing their perspective (e.g. Universalism, Calvinism, Puritanism, Evangelicalism, Catholicism, whatever other “ism” might be applied here) on everyone else to one degree or another are coming from the same place, but from opposite ends of the divide. For common folk living life, Fascism and Communism are not all that much different on the ground, but adherents to and within those two political systems are mortal enemies.
So, you wrote [I’m conversing with someone on TitusOneNine]: “[liberal Episcopalians]… departed from the faith once and for all handed down to the saints. There has been no discipline and no succor granted to those who have suffered under the jackboots of the liberals (I am writing from the Diocese of New Westminster to give you context).” The conservatives will engage in just as determined and jackbooted ways as you accuse the liberals of acting, except they will use a different set of excuses or rationals for their jackbooted actions. The liberals don’t see themselves as acting in these kinds of tyrannical ways, and neither will the conservatives.
The whole way our troubles are being and have been approached and addressed is the problem. It is a core problem, and if not addressed there will never be resolution. God will not be glorified and the cause of Christ in North American will be further harmed.
I will agree that many liberals have been oppressive, but there are plenty of conservatives that are oppressive, too. For all of them, their means of achieving their ends are a big part of the problem, whether liberal or conservative. This core problem if not identified and addressed will bleed into the new Common Cause province, too. Once the common enemy of TEC is gone, the very real and definite differences within the different groups will bring up even more division if dealt with by the same ways and means as we have over this past several years. This is what history shows us, particularly in the U.S.
So, why not spend more time focusing on the core problem – the deficient and unchristian means and ways we try to achieve our end goals (which for both sides is the Glory of God and the reconciliation of humanity to God) – rather than tearing down and attempting to rebuild in our own image? From what I know of Anglicanism, our ability to do this kind of wrestling and dealing with one another and vast difference has been one of our unique contributions to Christianity. It is dying, and it is the fault of all of us.
Those with vested interests in our troubles, well, we have all failed, because we have been playing the game in ways dictated by our culture. We act and fight like Americans and not people that claim to be part of the Kingdom of God.
New Denomination
Bishop Duncan of a diocese in Pennsylvania (formerly bishop of the Diocese of Pittsburgh) that gives allegiance to the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone (certain countries in South America) has publicly stated that in December a new denomination will be born. Probably… most likely. There has been no retraction.
Of course, their end goal has been common knowledge. They’ve known it. We’ve all known it since the Chapman memo.
Naturally, if The Episcopal Church leadership would capitulate and submit to the doctrinal and confession nature of their American-Evangelical-style theological and ecclesiological positions, then they wouldn’t need to form a new denomination outside the Tradition and structures of historical Anglicanism, but the Episcopal Church leadership won’t submit to blackmail. While I don’t necessarily agree with all the theological beliefs or positions of many leaders of this Church these days or their willingness to ignore the Canons, I don’t condone dishonesty, hypocrisy, and blackmail. Besides, I made vows before God, and I have a high-view of God’s ability to run His Church, even reform it in His own good time. I also understand history.
So, they do what they said they would do all along. They form a new denomination, they get numerically large provinces in the Southern Hemisphere to recognize them as legitimate, and they do the very American and Protestant thing – they break away and form yet another Protestant denominational sect. They do this for the sake of purity because if they don’t Jesus will depart from them and not bless them. They act this way because they really love Jesus (more than the rest), and because their are very wise since they rightly have their particular interpretation of Scripture, and because they so clearly hear the very voice of God since they obviously love Jesus so much. (I’m not being sarcastic. I was an American-Evangelical for most of my life. I know how they think and what they feel! I can say that in many ways I am still an Anglican-Evangelical, but it is not the same thing.)
Really, for how many years now have they been working toward this end. They publicly denied such a thing and tried to emphasis that they are only working to reform The Episcopal Church, but at the same time taking steps to protect themselves from the evil doings of heretical liberals that lead this Church. They were kidding no one, but because, I suppose, legal and public relationships considerations were/are more important than honesty, forthrightness, and integrity they had to pretend that they were not working toward this end.
So, now we read that certain primates will recognize them. Greg Griffith (no relation) over at StandFirm writes, “After my interview about the Anglican Relief and Development Fund, I asked Bishop Duncan, and Archbishops Anis, Nzimbi and Akrofi about the new North American Province.” They all forthrightly support bishop Duncan’s efforts and the new province.
We all knew short of giving this group of leaders and followers the reigns of power and control over The Episcopal Church that this would be the end result. The four diocese have left. A new denomination will be born. The Anglican Communion will not be the same. Anglicanism as a Christian ethos and form of Christian spiritual expression will continue in some form, but not really with this “conservative” group (nor will it with the change-obsessed “liberals”). They are too American-Evangelical or Congregationalist. They are too overwhelmed by the Spirit-of-the-Times and they capitulate to American culture all too well. (Funny how they accuse the liberals of capitulating to the culture, when they are so blind to their own capitulation!)
Speaking of simplicity and dignity…
“Novelty may fix our attention not even on the service but on the celebrant. You know what I mean. Try as one may to exclude the question, ‘What on earth is he up to now?’ will intrude. It lays one’s devotion waste. There is really some excuse for the man who said, ‘I wish they’d remember that the charge to Peter was Feed my sheep; not Try experiments on my rats, or even, Teach my performing dogs new tricks.”
C.S. Lewis
Who leaves whom? What?
I read a lot of statements that go something like, “Let’s be clear. TEC has left Bishop Bob Duncan.” Implying that those who are attempting to break away from The Episcopal Church are not at fault for trying to break away – it is really the fault of the other guys.
I want to touch on this. My sense is that in this kind of statement there is a misunderstanding of what it means to be Anglican (or a willful disregard for the Anglican Tradition). Priests, of which I am one, have done a terrible job over the last 40 years conveying the Tradition; to take seriously their teaching function with regard to the Cure of Souls and passing on the Tradition within both the Anglican-Evangelical and the Anglo-Catholic wings of this Church. I’m sorry if that offends some people, but it is the truth. For example, there has been historically a big difference between American-Evangelicals and Anglican-Evangelicals, but sadly the difference has been largely lost over the last few decades in the U.S. We are now acting like American-Evangelicals (the tradition of my early adult life).
One aspect of Anglican Tradition is a wide berth with regard to theological position and opinion even at the extreme ends, yet a remaining together ecclesiastically. Fight as we may, Anglicans still come together – and to know Anglican history is to know that those fights have been severe and the theological differences profound.
We are not like the Protestants that because of disagreements over piety or belief simply go off and start a new denomination (or at least we have not been like them in the past). We are also not like Roman Catholics that through their Magisterium dictate what will be believed by all (and in some quarters, we now want our own Magisterium). We are acting like we don’t know our own Tradition, or else we are being co-opted by those within Anglicanism that are determined to make us either more Protestant or Roman.
What we have done over the last 40 years is allow the extremes to take control of the Church – either extreme “conservatives” or extreme “liberals” – rather than the vast majority in the middle tolerating the extremes on the edges of Anglicanism and allowing their perspectives to challenge us and keep the whole Church in balance. The middle has remained silent and capitulated, sadly, and as a result we are being pulled apart by the extremes.
We are very out of balance right now, and herein lies our need for a “loyal opposition” that will remain. In time, the “conservatives” will again hold the levers of governance and the “liberals” will have to be the “loyal opposition,” unless of course we continue as we are by not acting like Anglicans and just shatter into pieces. We need to know our history and Tradition! There is no need to try to transform Anglicanism into being like other denominations – whether the Assemblies of God or the Unitarian Universalists.
Because of all this, saying that the current leadership of this Church “left Bishop Duncan” is not accurate in my opinion. Yes, of course the more liberal leadership has theological opinions that are definitely not in line with the theological opinions of the conservatives, and visa-versa. Again, this has always been the case within Anglicanism, although perhaps over different issues. The difference now is that some bishops and priests are determined to split away from the main body and form their own new and improved and purer denomination. This is very Protestant, very American-Evangelical, very Congregational, but not very Anglican.
Disposition of a Bishop
As most know by now, the recent Episcopal House of Bishops voted to support the judgment that the See of Pittsburgh, Bishop Robert Duncan, has given up his “communion with this Church.” The Presiding Bishop signed his disposition and has removed him from his See after the vote of the House of Bishops.
Information from the Diocese of Pittsburgh’s is found here. The diocesan Standing Committee is not(oops) now in charge of the diocese – here is a statement from the Committee. Of course, all this is in the game-plan. The leadership, bishop, clergy, and laity, of the diocese know that this would be the outcome when they started down the path. Nothing unexpected, IMHO, and they have their responses and plans all laid out. We shall see how it all plays out.
There is a link to “Statements of support for the bishop and the diocese are coming in from all over the world.” Such support came from a group of leaders from renewal movements within North American Mainline Protestant denominations. For example:
(Press Release) More than twenty Executives and Leaders of renewal movements and ministries within the mainline denominations of the U.S. and Canada sent a letter of support today to Bishop Bob Duncan, Episcopal Bishop of Pittsburgh who was “deposed” Friday by the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church at the insistence of Presiding Bishop Katherine Schori. In their letter they also issued a strong rebuke to The Episcopal leadership. Bishop Duncan has been a faithful advocate for Biblical Christianity in the Episcopal Church for over two decades.
The mainline renewal leaders wrote to Bishop Duncan, “We stand with you in solidarity as you endure this trial of your faith. Your patient, courageous, and steadfast witness has been an inspiration to all of us who desire to see our Lord Jesus Christ glorified in his church.” They went on to say, “It grieves our hearts to see those entrusted with church leadership such as Bishop Schori and the Episcopal House of Bishops, engaged in such divisive and destructive behavior. Like other denominational officials in the North American mainline denominations, they have acted with callous disregard for the authority of scripture, the witness of the historic church, and the sanctity of human life, sexuality, and marriage. We are most deeply grieved for the millions of Christian believers who have been forced out of the churches of their childhood by those they trusted to lead.”
Association for Church Renewal President, David Runnion-Bareford said, “This action is tragic for the whole ecumenical church. Katherine Schori and those who voted to depose Bishop Duncan are emerging as the new fundamentalists of the left. Their legalism and separatism appear to be birthed from much the same defensiveness that marked the fundamentalists on the right in a previous generation. Their disregard for faithful submission to the Lordship of Jesus Christ, the authority of scripture, the unity of the church and holy living has divided and torn the church irreparably.”
Signatories included church leaders from the United Methodist Church, Presbyterian Church USA, The United Church of Christ, The Church of the Brethren, The Presbyterian Church in Canada, The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and the Disciples of Christ.
Hat-tip Titusonenine
This is all very sad, but seriously, all Bishop Duncan had to do is say (and mean) that he will not attempt to lead the diocese out of The Episcopal Church, whether he personally decides to stay and fight or resign his See due to the condition of this Church. There are those who try again and again to make this an act of Church’s leadership purging it of “conservatives†or Bible-believing-Christians. It isn’t. It is about a bishop who intends to end his relationship with the Church that ordained and consecrated him, but retain all the stuff of the diocese of that Church. I respect his theological position and his willingness to sacrifice for it, but I do not respect his attempts to act like a Congregationalist rather than an Anglican.
Of course, when it comes to the term “Bible-believing-Christian,†for certain groups within this Church – and the renewal groups within the other Mainline Protestant denominations mentioned – that term means agreement with particular interpretations of the Bible. If certain other people or groups do not agree with that specific interpretation of the Bible, then those other people are not considered “Bible-believing,†regardless of how those other people or groups claim to regard and handle Scripture. This is not the Anglican way, but the way of the American Culture Wars.
Common-ness, or something…
This is too long, but in my “thinking out loud,” brevity isn’t easy. I am very thankful that this Church makes a place for those who wrestle with doubt. I am very glad that those who find this Faith very difficult to manage are given a place to struggle. Our Tradition dictates that we make a way for those with whom we disagree, for those we may find it difficult to engage, and that we can find our strength and balance in having a wide theological and pietistic berth. It is a strength of our Anglican Tradition.
I love the fact that within this Church we have Charismatic Anglican-Evangelicals and Anglo-Papists, and all the theological and pietistic diversity that comes into play as a result. What a positive witness to the world of a way of being that is so peculiar within the prevailing worldly systems. Yet, our Tradition calls us to put aside all these differences and come to the Eucharist and receive the Bread and the Wine together, to common prayer and worship, from a unifying Book of Common Prayer. We are witnessing the reality that common worship and prayer and means of maintaining diversity are not possible when we all decide to do our own thing – province to province, diocese to diocese, parish to parish, and individual to individual.
As I’ve ruminated before, discipline is very important in this kind of environment, else we end up with chaos and disunity. Benevolent ecclesiastical discipline is a necessity, theological rigor is vital, honesty and good will must be maintained, else we fly apart, we demonize our opponents, we act very unchristian in front of a world that seeks something, someone, someplace that can offer hope beyond what they find with these world systems. We fail them and the cause of Christ when some of us in the aggregate insist on acting the way we have been in this Church and this Communion over the past 5 years specifically and really building over the last 20+ years, perhaps more. The fault and blame lie squarely at the feet of people who claim both conservatism and liberalism, but with the intent of imposing their own ideology on the rest of us. Social and political ideology have become more important than our unity. Looks just like our polarized civil government, doesn’t it?
Over the years, I’ve noticed a shift in part of the ethos of this Church – perhaps only in the leadership (bishops, priests, theologians), perhaps within its very fiber – away from something that sounds like, “The Church teaches, even as I struggle to understand…” to something that sounds more like, “This is what I want to believe, regardless of what the Church teachers.” We continue to move down the path of self and hyper-individualism in belief and action over the Common good – this is a weakness, a proclivity that has and continues to hinder us in our proclamation of the Cause of Christ in word and deed.
Is this Church more like the Unitarian Universalists, that believe that each person can cobble together their own belief system in good faith or is it more like the Southern Baptists that believe it is imperative that all must agree on every jot and tittle, else they be expelled from fellowship? After all, what does light have to do with darkness.
One group shouts, “Hurray! We are moving to the enlightened position of the Unitarian Universalists and we are remaking this Church just like we want it to be!” Even as we lose members and become irrelevant to the larger society. Another groups shouts, “We must stop this heresy and re-impose the faith that has been handed down unchanging since the time of Jesus, else we cannot ourselves believe.” Even as we no longer provide a space for those who doubt or have a hard time believing or are looking for an example of a place where people can get along despite important differences. Most of all the rest of us just want to be Anglicans, as the Tradition reveals.
What have we done with “Doubt,” the twin of faith and necessary for the Faith to be realized, IMHO? One side has elevated doubt into a virtue to be extolled and emulated. Another side has condemned it to be antithetical to a Christian life. Right now, the side that extols doubt to the point of virtue is on the ascendancy. Couple that with our rampant individualism and you have a recipe for chaos and disaster. This is where were we are living. It can’t last. The world isn’t seeking chaos, a place that has no real identity, or a people that have no clue what they believe in common. For the rest of us, we just want to be Anglicans, as the Tradition reveals.
This may be an exaggeration of the real condition of the parishes across the Church. Jason has reminded me that to get caught up in generalities can be problematic, and I tend to. I tend to look at trends – I don’t see the forest for the trees, at times. Yet, I can’t take a broad look across this Church and think that we are going in good direction on the whole. The statistics, and I have the statistics, show that we continue to decline – and that means our positive influence over the powers-that-be politically, socially, and financially for the good of all continues to decline. The path this Church has gone down and continues down – elevating doubt to a virtue, allowing hyper-individualism to overwhelm our Common experience, and putting aside our discipline – works counter to the very things the leadership has proclaimed it be important. We pass resolutions that no longer impact anyone.
As I’ve said before, the clergy take vows to maintain the discipline of this Church through which we received our Holy Orders and are licensed to fulfill our priestly office; we vow to maintain the Church’s teaching in its Canons and the Book of Common Prayer as we act pastorally, prophetically, sacramentally. We are failing the people; we are failing the nation; we are failing Anglicanism, as the Tradition reveals – in the aggregate.
Prayer Book Anglican/Episcopalian
After vacation, after much conversation, after discussion of the expression of a new and unique kind of narrative, after continuing to watch the sickness of this Church and the unwillingness of the patient to recognize its need for medicine or even a need of healing, after seeing the Congregationalist chaos that has overwhelmed this Church – a rejection of the disciplined, Prayer Book tradition – I come to this conclusion:
We all need to be called back to the Prayer Book! We need to simply be “Prayer Book Anglicans” – whether Evangelical or Catholic or anywhere in between. We need to come together again in Common worship – province to province, diocese to diocese, parish to parish, individual to individual. Along with Canterbury, this is a defining mark of an Anglican. We are losing it.
No more violation of Ordination Vows by bishops and priests that ignore the Canons and the Rubrics. How in the world am I to have any respect for bishops that knowingly, willingly, and boastfully violate the Canons and the doctrine of this Church for their own notion of how things things should be done? Why should I obey such bishops, when their example is to blatantly disobey? Not good examples. “Local option” is great for Protestant Congregationalists, but is problematic for those claiming to be part of the Universal Church. (There is a difference in making pastoral provisions from time-to-time and in making pastoral provision the norm!)
We used to be a Church governed by law where we could propose, consistently and thoroughly vet, argue about, and then decide to make or not to make changes (however imperfectly it worked at times). We used to have a loyal opposition that would argue its case, but if it didn’t win it remained and continued arguing – we all worshiped together, in common prayer, using the Prayer Book. We’ve moved too far from this Episcopal model because of the assertion of Identity-Politics and misplaced ideas of hyper-individualism and justice – and most likely lots of other stuff that I am unaware of. Now, we assert our individual – individual – rights without regard for the common good, law, process, discipline… This is chaos. This is what is making our Church so sick.
I want to yell loudly – “Be Prayer Book Anglicans!” Be Prayer Book Evangelicals! Be Prayer Book Catholics! Even be Prayer Book Progressives! How many parishes actually use the Prayer Book as it was intended without looking for loopholes in order to do their own eccentric thing? Do priests with such limited understanding, considering the vast amount of information there is to have, believe they know better than the 2,000 years of lived experience of Christians throughout the world? In our American hubris, yes we do.
Those of us on vacation, after a lot of discussion, well, what I got from it is the need to be a “Voice for the Voiceless.” This time, the voiceless are those who advocate equality under law (abiding by Canons and rubrics), who advocate our catholicity and the need to be concerned with the whole Church and not just this little province (despite how much money we have right now, though quickly dwindling), and for those who wish to be Prayer Book Episcopalians! This isn’t about issues of conservatism, liberalism, Evangelicalism, Anglo-Catholicism, homosexuality or the like – but how we conduct ourselves. Frankly, it is orthopraxis. Its about Lex orandi, lex credendi. It is the Prayer Book.
Confession and The Book of Common Prayer
A year or so ago, I ran into a Roman, as in Catholic and not nationality, priest on a subway car. I don’t see Roman Catholic priests in clericals very often, so I wondered whether he might be an Episcopalian or perhaps a Lutheran. We talked a bit and have gotten together a couple of times, one being yesterday. When I was showing him around St. Paul’s, he mentioned the confessional booth we have in the back of the nave. It hasn’t been used in a long time, primarily because when someone wants to confess it is usually done face-to-face these days.
I mentioned that I’ve been thinking about wanting to return to using the booth for a type of confession in a kind of way that may resonate with young folks who do not have a history or tradition of confession.
In Christianity Today (August, 2008 edition), there is an article of an Evangelical pastor and his church and the decision that several of them made to decide together to actually live out Leviticus for a month. Now, they didn’t live the judgments – what was to be done if a law was actually broken. If they did, they would end up in prison – can’t go around killing children when they talk back to their parents. The outcome and what they experienced and learned is interesting.
The pastor wrote the following about a fellow participant in the experiment, which coming from an American-Evangelical is of interest to me. The following quote gets to the growing use of the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer by American-Evangelicals/Reformed Christians (and I’m sure to the chagrin of many older American-Evangelical leaders that consider anything touched by the heretical Episcopal Church to be anathema). It also gets to the point about the sense I have concerning confession. Anyway, he wrote:
“For the participants in the Levitical experience, its power for personal transformation was unexpected and perhaps the most rewarding aspect. One wrote, ‘I had a hard time with Leviticus month. For about 30 days and 18 hours, I groused and complained… Early in the month I had been reading through the sacrificial section and was convinced that the modern-day, post-Jesus equivalent is confession. This is something I knew about from my Catholic days, but it had never been part of my life. I was not interested in doing this again – but the way I was not wanting to made me think that I really ought to. So I looked up the Episcopal liturgy, made arrangements with an accommodating confessor, took a very deep breath, and jumped in.’ [Emphasis mine. I will assume he went to an Episcopal priest as his confessor, since it was the Episcopal liturgy of “Reconciliation of a Penitent” that he referred to, but perhaps not.]
“‘I don’t know what I was expecting, but this was not what I was expecting. This was Large. This was a Major Life Event. I spent hours dredging up the muck in my life and preparing my list – and then it was all washed away. Gone. I was walking on air. And all of a sudden I knew that I was in a really good place and I did not want to muck it up anymore. Okay God, I prayed, this is fantastic. I want to stay here. Whaddya want me to do?’ Needless to say, reading through Leviticus again looked so different in light of grace.” (p. 33)
I do think there is a whole bunch of people who would find confession an incredible experience, if they could get beyond their self-consciousness, fear, lack of trust in a confessor, or who knows what. It is a practice that I have been anticipating for a while now, but I just haven’t gotten to it. I should. While I know that God has already forgiven me my sins as I confess to Him, a confessor is one who can confirm when I still doubt that God has truly forgiven me, restored me, and makes me able to freely forgive those who “sin against me.”