Category Archives: the episcopal church

Statement from the Archbishop of Canterbury

Posted on by

The Archbishop of Canterbury has issued a statement after the 76th General Convention of the Episcopal Church. In my humble opinion, it is well written and clear – even within the reality that so many things are still in flux with regard to the Communion and its integrity.
Here is a link to the Archbishop’s statement.
Here are a couple interesting paragraphs that deal with the idea of a two-tiered or “two-track” structure that may end up developing. The specific sentence I think couches the concerns of the Archbishop deals with “who speaks for whom.” Within the Communion and with regard to our ecumenical relationships, it must be established that in negotiations and communications that is a voice of the Anglican Communion. Here are the paragraphs:

22 It is possible that some will not choose this way of intensifying relationships [signing on to the final Covenant], though I pray that it will be persuasive. It would be a mistake to act or speak now as if those decisions had already been made – and of course approval of the final Covenant text is still awaited. For those whose vision is not shaped by the desire to intensify relationships in this particular way, or whose vision of the Communion is different, there is no threat of being cast into outer darkness – existing relationships will not be destroyed that easily. But it means that there is at least the possibility of a twofold ecclesial reality in view in the middle distance: that is, a ‘covenanted’ Anglican global body, fully sharing certain aspects of a vision of how the Church should be and behave, able to take part as a body in ecumenical and interfaith dialogue; and, related to this body, but in less formal ways with fewer formal expectations, there may be associated local churches in various kinds of mutual partnership and solidarity with one another and with ‘covenanted’ provinces.
23. This has been called a ‘two-tier’ model, or, more disparagingly, a first- and second-class structure. But perhaps we are faced with the possibility rather of a ‘two-track’ model, two ways of witnessing to the Anglican heritage, one of which had decided that local autonomy had to be the prevailing value and so had in good faith declined a covenantal structure. If those who elect this model do not take official roles in the ecumenical interchanges and processes in which the ‘covenanted’ body participates, this is simply because within these processes there has to be clarity about who has the authority to speak for whom. [emphasis mine]
24. It helps to be clear about these possible futures, however much we think them less than ideal, and to speak about them not in apocalyptic terms of schism and excommunication but plainly as what they are – two styles of being Anglican, whose mutual relation will certainly need working out but which would not exclude co-operation in mission and service of the kind now shared in the Communion. It should not need to be said that a competitive hostility between the two would be one of the worst possible outcomes, and needs to be clearly repudiated. The ideal is that both ‘tracks’ should be able to pursue what they believe God is calling them to be as Church, with greater integrity and consistency. It is right to hope for and work for the best kinds of shared networks and institutions of common interest that could be maintained as between different visions of the Anglican heritage. And if the prospect of greater structural distance is unwelcome, we must look seriously at what might yet make it less likely.

In earlier paragraphs, he dealt with the issues of same-sex relationships and the ability to be in ecclesial leadership (clergy, particularly bishops). As he said, historically and within the tradition the same rule should apply for heterosexuals and homosexuals – at this point within the universal Church sexual relationships outside the bonds of Holy Matrimony (a “lifestyle”) does not allow for ecclesial leadership. Holy Matrimony being between a man and a woman, as the Church Catholic currently and historically understands such things.
The Church Catholic has not changed its mind on this, even though several local Churches are in the process of changing. They are vanguards, and perhaps in the forefront of the coming universal change of understanding. The interesting thing is that within England, the Archbishop’s current understanding may place him in opposition with a good part of his own Church. Is he intending on enforcing such a policy for the sake of integrity, and if he is what happens if under Establishment the Parliament or the Queen dictate otherwise? Will Rowan, I wonder, go the route of Newman? I don’t know… I don’t think his personal theological opinion has changed with regard to the possibility of same-sex relationships, but in his position he has to deal with far more and has to plow a middle way that in the end satisfies no one.
So much of all this mess deals with the means by which we pursue what we want – the end goal. I am so disappointed in the attitudes of many people and the means by which my Church is pursuing what I think in the end is correct and right. The end goal is not so much the important thing, but we will be judged according to the way we acted during the process – the means. Coming from this former American-Evangelical, I can say that my primary thought is the grounding of a Catholic understanding of things, even if in the shorter term (or even the mid-term), I don’t get what I want. But, how long to continue to wait is an important and palpable question.

Aftermath

Posted on by

People can say whatever they want, and they do, but my opinion of Archbishop Rowan Williams has changed over the years – for the better. I used to think he was a week leader who should have stayed in academia, but now I see him as a prime example of Anglicanism at its best. He is one of the few international Anglican leaders that continue to act in an Anglican way – calling all to continue together in discussion and fellowship and refusing to castoff anyone into utter darkness. He refused to act unilaterally! It seems to me that those who demand that Rowan take up their narrow positions (liberal or conservative) and a hammer against their opponents are the ones that continually call him a failed leader. Too bad.
I read a response to a Facebook post after the General Convention passed DO25 reporting that Davis Mac-Iyalla, Director of Changing Attitude Nigeria, said that GLBT Christians in Africa would be greatly harmed if the Communion disintegrates. I’m trying to find the reference. I’m also trying to find a reason to believe that our actions this past week of General Convention will do anything to help the Communion to not disintegrate even more. As one gay priest, and with many I know, we are not feeling all that good about what we have done. That will be quite perplexing to some straight activist types, but give ear to our voice anyway.
Do we only care about Ubuntu among our own or honestly among all? It means that I do not always get my way. In not seriously considering the well being of “the least of these,” our GLBT sisters and brothers on the ground in places where they face real violence and imprisonment every day of their existence, we do them a great disservice.

The Society of Catholic Priests

Posted on by

An acquaintance of mine, priest-to-be Robert Hendrickson (a very good friend of our former seminarian The Rev’d. John Dryman) is involved in the development of an American branch of the UK’s Society of Catholic Priests.
I think this sounds quite good – I’m interested. Below is a general letter that is being distributed to interested people, so I present it for any who might be interested.

THE SOCIETY OF CATHOLIC PRIESTS
In the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada

Over several years, the Society of Catholic Priests has come up in conversations and those conversations usually worked their way to “someone should…”. In the last few months, someone has begun conversations with the Society in the UK and plans are underway to establish a group here in the Episcopal Church. At this point, I and Robert Hendrickson, a recent graduate from GTS who is serving as an intern here at Christ Church are beginning the process to convene a branch of the Society.
The last few decades have seen several attempts at similar groups- some with more effect and with a more sustained presence than others. This one seems to me to offer to advantages- first, it is aimed at priests and at supporting the spiritual life and the theological reflection that undergirds our work as priests. Focus and singular mission can be energizing for a group like this. Second, it begins at time when there is a range of communication media and when no one expects an group like this to gather and spend great amounts of money. Journals, impressive conferences, and the like aren’t likely and may not be essential at any rate.
If it is successful, the Society will allow catholic minded priests (and seminarians and deacons) to deepen their spiritual life, reflect more deeply on the faith and on our work, and will create bonds of affection, accountability and respect among us. In September, we hope to offer a regional gathering in New York. In November, we expect to welcome the Rev’d Canon Andrew Nunn, rector general of the SCP in the UK, as we inaugurate the Society in North America at our first annual provincial (national) meeting in New Haven, Connecticut.
If you are interested in being part of this, we want to hear from you- and even better, we would be grateful if you would consider inviting others or serving as a convener for your region or diocese. At this point, and based on the UK model, the Society would aim at quarterly gatherings- with perhaps a paper on some topic of interest or a quiet day reflection- worship and a meal together. A web-based aspect of the Society is being developed to allow for a different sort of conversation and to share resources. The Society’s center will have to be in local groups- and so the beginning and the continuance of this depends on wider interest and shared commitment to this work.
God’s blessings on your ministry and on whatever quiet and rest the summer offers you- and many thanks for considering and responding to this invitation.
(The Revd) David Cobb, rector
Christ Church, New Haven

For more information, these are the Society of Catholic Priests links to the UK and American (still in development) websites:
United Kingdom
North American
Contact Robert Hendrickson at rhendrickson@thescp.org for more information.

What is our foundation? Some imperfect thoughts on BO33 & DO25 and General Convention

Posted on by

This is going to be a rambling journey through a variety of stuff, I think. That, I suppose, isn’t so unusual, but as I’m trying to make connections and put things in some sort of rational order so to make an argument (or statement) that makes some kind of sense, this is just what I have to do. I process “out loud.”
I attended the first week of the 76th General Convention of the Episcopal Church. I had a great experience seeing people, witnessing a process that can be tedious, but always precise. Our polity is different and regrettably hard for some around the world to understand.
I watched this video on YouTube for Michael Jackson’s “Man in the Mirror.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtGD6t75HS8 (not available to embed)
So much of our current culture drives us down a path that belittles and denigrates in one way or another our humanity and common good for the purposes of power, privilege, and greed. I can’t but head the words and the images of Jackson’s song and this video and say that this world desperately needs a different way of ordering itself. I think the Gospel of Jesus Christ presents us a way, but it is a voluntary way, a very difficult way, a costly way, a humbling and self-denying way, a way that will not be accepted by entrenched interests that thrive on maintaining the status-quo even if it means the death of the common good.
This different way in a Christian understanding is a way that is not possible by our own means or determination, but first by the transforming of our souls (the Cure of Souls) by God. It isn’t just institutional evil that causes and perpetuates our human ills, but firstly the evil that resides within all of our hearts – our rebellion against God’s good way, as the 1979 Pray Book Catechism stresses. We see from history that even religious institutions can often be humanity’s worst enemy!
Atheists and non-Christians do great charitable things, and we see many providing a far better example of the “caring for the least of these” than do many Christians, yet the way of which I speak comes only from God’s restorative work within our own souls. From that beginning point, institutions are changed by the people within them, our processes are improved, and our world is made better.
Some in this Church of ours (and the greater Body of Christ), have allowed themselves to be co-opted by some Systems of this World. This is true of liberals as well as conservatives, just in different ways! For example, I think that many people within The Episcopal Church have taken to an idea that the foundation of our work is a sort of psycho-therapeutic model that strives to make people feel good about themselves, a sort of institutional purpose that promotes self-esteem or being well-adjusted. If we make people “feel” welcomed, esteemed, and good about themselves then we have succeeded in fulfilling our Gospel mission. It is as if God is the great therapist in the sky (or the new-age kind of daddy-guru figure), rather than the great redeemer and restorer of souls.
For many, this way of thinking has replaced, for whatever reasons, the idea that the Church is to be about the “Cure of Souls” (predicated on the understanding that humanity has been impossibly burdened and bound by ways of thinking and being that separate us from God – sin – and irrevocably destroy true relationship with one another absent the restorative work of the Holy Spirit). I believe giving ourselves to this way of thinking and being has caused the Church to give over its vital purpose for a lesser one, to lose its reason for being (which might be shown by fewer and fewer people wanting to be a part of us). For people seeking a faith community of restoration, I think they recognize that in many ways our Church doesn’t look much different from the World – from those systems that perpetuate division, hatred, uncompromising attitudes, and the impoverishment of soul and the common good (even as we do some good works).
I have to ask what kind of foundation the current structures of this Church are being built. Are the structures able to withstand the test of time or the trials that inevitably come as the Systems of this World work their best to overcome and destroy the Way of God? I consider our current troubles and watch the actions and resolutions of General Convention, and I have to ask upon what foundation are we making our decisions. Do we consider the well being of the whole community as vitally important – in the U.S. and around the world – or do we continue to simply concentrate on our own limited and myopic goals and special interests? (It isn’t that I am not supportive of the desired outcomes of most of what is being proposed by General Convention as an example, but I question whether the reasons for the proposals are based on Christian precepts – understood through time and trial – or trendy precepts that have their origins in systems that in the end only perpetuate our continued boundedness by sin.)
Why do we do what we do? The injustice that infects this world, the bigotry and exclusion that overwhelms our societies, the selfishness that enables starvation, the myopic vision that encourages war and deprivation – all of these need to be called out and confronted, even unto death. Yet, why and how do we as the Church pursue the remedy of these things? For the Church, I don’t think the “why” or “how” rests on trying to make people feel good about themselves, to be self-actualized, or to be esteemed. That kind of psycho-social work is important and we should encourage and support it, but it isn’t the work of the Church. Our progressive sense of wellbeing, from a Christian perspective, comes from the results of a transformation of the soul. What good is it for a man or woman to inherit the world, but lose his or her soul? For the Church, we are to be about the Cure of Souls – salvation, forgiveness, restoration of relationship between God and man and between one another. It is profoundly difficult to give up one’s life in order to gain life. It is a long and hard row to hoe for the Church to stand in prophetic opposition to the Systems of the World, predicated on the salvific and restorative work of Jesus Christ.
What was (is) our motivation for BO33 or DO25? What is our foundation?

The 76th Convention #1

Posted on by

I arrived at the 76th General Convention of the Episcopal Church (TEC-USA) yesterday late afternoon. I haven’t made it to the convention hall as of yet, but most certainly this morning. I have booth duties.
I am looking forward to hearing from Archbishop Rowan Williams – I think he is speaking this evening.
I don’t know what I’m feeling about this General Convention. I know that a large block of people who would have pulled the convention to a more middle balance are now gone. I’m concerned that the more fervent forces on the left are flush with expectation that their day has finally come (even though they are fighting/propagandizing as if this is not the case) since all their assumed bigoted and anti-everything opponents have finally left the building. Those pesky conservatives don’t have to be bothered with any longer.
I respect the continued advocacy and fight for full inclusion of all God’s children in all the sacraments of the Church. Of course, some of my support will depend on how certain words are defined. While all people are God’s creation, those God calls His children (at least Scriptural speaking) are those who choose to follow Him. What I do not respect is a winner-takes-all attitude and the hubris that befalls ardent fighters on both sides of the issue. One side is only slightly represented at this convention, and I think we are impoverished all the more by that fact. If we say that we want all voices, all people, at the table, then let’s mean it!
I still believe that for the sake of brothers and sisters in parts of the world that fall under persecution, real violence, and banishment from the Church, we in the U.S. need to refrain at this time, and for only a time, from overturning BO33 (the agreement by TEC-USA during its last convention to abide by a moratorium on consecrating any new openly-gay and partnered bishops and approving official rites for the blessing of same-sex unions).
I say this for a couple reasons:
1.) Regardless of what certain Provinces say or do with regard to TEC-USA, if we are all still part of the same Communion then our voice of advocacy and support will still be a potent force in helping gay-Christians in those countries survive. To rise up and say that WE will go forward and if the rest of the Communion won’t, well then too bad, is a very selfish, inconsiderate, and unjust thing to do. It is an exemplary example of American hubris and arrogance. For the sake of justice for the “haves,” we will sacrifice the “have-nots.” I can’t do that.
2.) For the sake of gay-Christians in countries where their only safe option is silence, or else violence, then I am perfectly willing to wait a while longer. My sense of self and my own sense of dignity are not impinged upon by laying aside what might benefit me for the sake of those who have so much less, so many fewer options, and in many cases just strive to survive. I am not going to succumb to the cult of victimhood. I can wait, for their sake.
3.) While there has been a whole lot of discussion and “study” over the last 30+ years within TEC-USA concerning the gay issue, I still do not find compelling the theological work that must consider all the tangible interconnections of a decision on this one issue to so many other aspects of the Church and society. While justice is very important, justice should not be placed before solid understand of the implications of decisions for justice on the other aspects of life.
Anyway, in my always incomplete and stumbling way, this is what I’m thinking at the moment. We are a Church Catholic, and as such we cannot just do what we want to do any time we want, all the time. While this is a very American thing to do, and while the conservatives that have left TEC-USA and the ardent liberals who while remaining would act in similiar ways if they don’t get their way, we must consider others to be extremely important.

76th General Convention

Posted on by

So, next week I will be off to Anaheim, CA, for the General Convention of the Episcopal Church. I will be there from July 7th through the 12th working for passage of Resolution A177 concerning denomination-wide heathcare benefits (the research project I’ve been working on these past three years). We shall see how it fairs. The situation with the economy might impact its passage, but all around this proposal saves the Church money!
I’m looking forward to listening to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, who will be giving an address. I’ve gone through several stages of feelings toward Rowan – from jubilation when he was made Archbishop (a real theologian as Archbishop of the Anglican Communion!), to frustration at want seemed to be ineffectual leadership concerning our Anglican troubles, to now thinking that he is one of the few in the midst of this ignoble fight that is acting like a real Anglican!
Since I’ve never been to L.A., I’m taking an extra day and a half to be a tourist – probably only enough time to do the standard stuff. I’m staying between Beverly Hills and Hollywood. Why not?

TEC Survey

Posted on by

Hey everyone – Here is our chance to make our “sacred voices” known to the powers-that-be at 815, the Episcopal Church Center, the center of the national governance of The Episcopal Church (more particularly the Strategic Planning Commission – if that’s the right name).
Here is the link to the “STRATEGIC PLANNING AND THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH” survey.
Reading through the questions, the wanted outcome of the designers of the survey is pretty apparent. They have tipped their hand, and if the outcome does not match their expectations, I wonder whether the results will be acknowledged or whether they will rethink their already determine direction?
I added an addition comment at the end:

Of course, how some of these terms are defined will make a big difference. For example, a response to question number 4 is: “Focusing on God’s Mission as the centerpiece of our church.” What one reads into “God’s Mission” could lead the Church into being about the “Cure of Souls” or into being about doing similar things as do social service organizations and advocacy organizations. Are we talking about a “Church” or a social/advocacy organization as our public “brand” or “narrative?” Making the Church “vital” has no more to do with having 60% Hispanics as members as it does having 60% Caucasians as members. These are old paradigms that are becoming increasingly outdated and irrelevant to upcoming generations. Why are we still stuck in them?
The Church needs focus on its God given first priorities, salvation and formation. From those priorities come good works and not before, else we are just a non-profit organization absent of the Faith that has been passed down by our mothers and fathers for the past 2,000+ years.
As a gay priest, I don’t need reminding of my “victimhood,” but need reminding of the transformation work of the Holy Spirit in my life that comes first and foremost through salvation through Jesus Christ and my yielding of myself to God’s will. That is the Cure of Souls, the work of the Church. We are stuck in a mindset that relies on 1960 & 70’s definitions and understandings (multiculturalism, identity-politics, as examples). These are passing away, but too many people are reticent to understand or acknowledge this – to the future Church’s detriment.
I honestly feel for the current leadership of the Episcopal Church, because culture is passing them by and too many don’t want to recognize it. It must be very hard to accept that the direction they have taken the Church has not worked very well and is quickly becoming moot.

The Future of the Church

Posted on by

So, where is the future of The Episcopal Church going? How generational is the change? Here is a great piece by Derek Olson from his blog Haligweorc entitled “The Episcopal ‘Reform of the Reform’”
He writes:

I suggest that there is a “Spirit of ‘79″ that was born from and exists in parallel to the “Spirit of Vatican II.” That is, the 1979 BCP embodied wide-spread changes that were rooted in the scholarship of the Liturgical Renewal that was embodied in Vatican II’s Novus Ordo liturgies. Like the Spirit of Vatican II, the Spirit of ‘79 has understood the generous freedoms and liberality of the ‘79 BCP as a authorization of liturgical license in general rather than a provision of space for legitimate options. Furthermore, I believe that this Spirit was not simply introduced in the texts but as part of a socio-liturgical movement.

In addition, he begins with the Roman Catholic Church and the place were the “reform of the reform” is well seen: New Liturgical Movement blog.

Campus ministry!

Posted on by

I’ve done some research… In the Diocese of Ohio, according to the latest attendance figures of all the four-year colleges and universities, there is a total student population of 178,651 within the boarders of the Diocese (the northern half of the state, above and not including Columbus). In the zip-code areas of current parish churches in the diocese of Ohio, there are approximately 165,829 students. There are 79,720 students in “college towns” with Episcopal parishes. In the personal, leadership, and spiritual development of students, this is a critical time in their lives. They are our future, they are becoming the movers and shakers of society, of business, of media, of politics, of war and peace, of the Church. It is tremendously important to provide them opportunities for discovery of the Gospel for the first time and for their faith development and Christian formation. That’s a lot of people at a very strategic and important time in their lives.
Campus Ministry: It is a fact, whether some want to face it or admit to it, that the future of this world rests in the hands of the students living and learning right now in our colleges and universities.
It is also a fact that for most mainline denominations, the support for campus ministry continues to wain and fail. Again and again I read of the ending of a college chaplaincy of The Episcopal Church, let alone all the other denominations. I wonder whether too many of those in leadership of mainline denominations have simply written off student ministry as a lost cause (even though giving lip service to its importance)? Among American-Evangelicals, it really is a funding issue, since they well realize that to influence the academy is to influence the world.
If we want to advocate for justice, say, or the precepts of the Christian Life (if we believe in them, that is, as being the way to honest freedom, peace, and inner joy), if we truly want to have an influence on the course of human events, then we must be involved in the lives of students, professors, and university staff. The majority of students entering the university these days are unchurched. In most cases, they have not been given a foundation upon which to make ethical or moral judgments beyond their own feelings or self-interest. They have not been given a foundation upon which to make judgments about legitimate religious expressions and cultic (in the venacular sense) groups. This is quickly becoming the common state of affairs, and student services staff fight against such things all the time (even though the underpinnings of the fight they wage is based on secular and often anti-religious positions).
“The World” has no problem asserting its influences on the lives, well being, and future direction of students lives. I worked with students for 20 years, I can attest to all kinds of “others” that simply want to exploit and manipulate students and turn them into consuming machines.
We should not continue to ignore the vital nature of university ministry by simply relinquishing the positive influence of the Gospel in academe and give students over to the deleterious effects of the negative influences they face every day. This is a vital time in human development, a strategic time to influence for the good, but we pull away and give over to the “principalities and powers of the air” our students, their future, and our own future well being.
Again, I have said that if we recognize the trends of our times (revealed repeatedly in study after study), we should realize that the historic traditions of Anglicanism play into the current “sense” of today’s students. Yet, it is not being realized.
There must be a way to reinvigorate campus ministry within The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Christian tradition in this country. It will not be upon the model in place for so many years – this is a big reason why so many ministries are failing and being closed. If the World looks at us and sees nothing much different from itself (themselves), then what’s the point? Why should people give a listen and consideration to the Gospel, since in their eyes those who claim it are just like them. Does not this Gospel change us fundamentally into a different kind of person… if we allow it, yield to it, and take it as our own? This doesn’t necessitate an Us vs Them dynamic if we remain in humility… the kind that is realized when we “love our neighbors as ourselves.”
Focusing on justice issues and good works without the transformation that happens within individual students by the life-changing experience of the Gospel is in the long run of little importance, IMHO. Re-formation (out of the Systems of this World and into a Life in Christ) must happen within individual students so to propel them to do justice, to love mercy, and to walk humble with their God.
As we continue on in a Post-Christian environment, the idea of establishing living-forming communities and residences with students among our campuses can be a model that gives us both a financial and non-political/ideological means of engaging students in their faith development and Christian formation. As we give ourselves to the Christian Disciplines, God works within us to build within us the means of changing the world for the good.
It is my desire and quest to be engaged in the re-development of campus chaplaincies / ministries within the Anglican tradition. I think it is vitally important for the future of this Church and for the well being of not only the students, but for academe and our society.

Easier to be negatively against than to articulate a positive end

Posted on by

A good article in the TimesOnline.com (UK) from Allister McGrath.
Credo: A system of belief should not involve point scoring:
The loss of an external threat often gives rise to an internal crisis, and the need for a new sense of identity
Speaking of the ANC, McGrath notes that the aftermath of this recent election in South Africa saw the ANC majority shrink. One reason, he speculates, is because it was much easier for the ANC to be against something, and negatively against something like Apartheid, but now they have to articulate what they are for.
McGrath writes:

That challenge seems to be proving more difficult as apartheid recedes in the popular memory. The ANC needs to create a new, positive identity for itself rather than relying on past enemies and battles.
It’s a familiar point. Purely oppositional movements tend to find themselves in difficulties once their point of reference is removed. The loss of an external threat often gives rise to an internal crisis, and the need for a new sense of identity. This often means that groups justify themselves by condemning others.

This is very true. Here in the U.S. we see this happening all over the place. President Obama presented a positive message of hope (as overworked as that word may have been) and many people voted for him even as they described themselves as “conservatives,” “Evangelicals,” “independents,” and “moderates.” We see now the primary movers and shakers of the Republican Party yelling and screaming about this and that, but all that is being presented loudly and forcefully is negative and for what they are against. Many of the leadership of the Republican Party will jump on just about anything the Obama administration does for no other reason that to try to cut his credibility, popularity, and effectiveness so that come the next election they might regain power and control.
Being the party in power is the goal of any political party, but the methods they are using at this point will only work against them, IMHO. This group of Republicans (Neo-Cons, really) do not understand what happened this past election. They still think shrill, arrogant attack is what is needed to get back into power. I think it is a profound misread of the current situation, and well demonstrates what McGrath is writing about. What is their positive message? Is fear mongering and character assassination all they have? What are their solutions and ideas that are not simply a repackaging of the Bush administrations failed policies? It is, truly, much harder to be a visionary and present a well reasoned and thought out positive message. (In some ways, the Newht Gringwich era “Contract with the American People” did that, but he is not acting in the same manner, now!)
Likewise, we see the political and sectarian goals of the Religious Right as demonstrating McGrath’s point. They talk a lot about protecting the American Family, but it is always in the context of what they are against – particularly their perceptions of the evils of homosexuality. What we see and hear in the media (even more particularly in the religious media) is all negative and victimhood. They fight against everything and everyone that does not line up with their viewpoints and goals. They may try to present in a positive way the fight to save the American Family, but to a growing number of people what they really see is nothing much more than anti-gay everything. Why, if they are so pro-family, do they not focus on the real culprits of the decline of the American family – all heterosexual, like divorce? I think because it is far easier to find a scapegoat rather than deal with the failings of one’s group, and it is easier to be negative. That is why in the longer run, I don’t think they are going to succeed in many of their efforts. Trends don’t look good. They need to re-tool and try to present to the public what they are for without the ranker and negativity and with positive, forward looking ideas.
Finally, we see this, too, in the groups breaking away from the Episcopal Church (TEC). Whether low-church Evangelicals or high-church Anglo-Catholics, their bond rests on their common opposition to the more progressive elements of the Anglican Communion, and particularly TEC. They articulate well what their common hatred is and to whom or what it is focused. They are articulating what they are for, but again in the context of what they are opposed to. It seems to be that for right now, the AMiA is the only group that has come out from under this illness. I just don’t see how Charismatic-Evangelicals claiming Anglicanism and favoring women priests are going to stay with Anglo-Catholics claiming Anglicanism who won’t have women priests. And, it isn’t just about women, but about the theologies they adhere to and the inevitable conflict that those different theologies will cause. Anglicanism has held it all in tension for a long time, but these groups are born out of schism and accusation and negative development (whether they are right or wrong).
Do they really represent anything different than the phenomena McGrath writes of?
This is partly why I am coming closer to simply declaring that I will side-step out of this eddie and quagmire that is now the TEC and Anglicanism, and devote myself to the Christian Disciplines continuing down through time and place and draw closer to God and those who are simply tired of all this negativism and accusation. In no way does that mean I am abandoning TEC or Anglicanism, surely not, but I will remove myself as much as I can from the deleterious effects of our current cultural deterioration (as evidenced in politics and the Church). Who knows…