Here is my sense of where the blogosphere debate is at: Anglicans who want to be part of a Communion in which there is interdependence and mutual accountability for what it means to be Anglican, conceived on a reasonably broad basis (but not on an infinitely diverse basis), are fully committed to the Covenant. The outstanding, and powerfully inspiring sign is the indication that the Global South, some 20 provinces, will sign the Covenant. Anglicans who want the Communion to be something else - some kind of talking shop, for example, or who will not allow local autonomy to be compromised by anything, or, contrastingly, who want the Communion to be tighter in discipline and narrower in theological basis are fervently committed to not having the Covenant.
In short: the Communion as a viable, visible, non-vacuous entity will be a Covenanted Communion. Without the Covenant the slow break up of world Anglicanism will continue unchecked.
Question (pace Yeats): the centre ground of Anglicanism is crucial to the future of the Communion, but will the centre hold?
Challenging story of the week re our Anglican troubles: Gene Robinson blesses the partnership of two women. Here is life in TEC chugging along on an track further and further away from Lambeth 1998, Windsor, and the Covenant. Should we follow - especially we in the liberal West, alert and alive to the claims of fellow Westies to the rights and privileges of Western civilization? It is attractive to see the solution to our troubles as following Gene rather than resisting his agenda. But here is a little check on the spirit of acquiescence, courtesy of Stand Firm. It's a graph of the attendance, membership and giving of the church in which the blessing took place - the church where one of the woman used to be rector and where her successor is also a lesbian. According to the graph around 25 people regularly attend worship at the church and (I am guessing) their giving is not enough to sustain a full-time stipend for their rector. This neatly illustrates one of my great concerns about progressive Anglicanism: it leads to a tiny church, it does nothing to grow the church of God.
In other words, even were I as a conservative to grant that progressive Anglicanism is theologically correct, as an Anglican I reserve the right to be very anxious about whether progressive Anglicanism will grow Anglican churches or gut them. Not only in New Hampshire, but also in New Zealand the signs are that it is the latter and not the former.
But the New Hampshire story's challenges do not end there. Dissing this blessing (as conservative Anglicans are wont to do) and highlighting the statistical undergirding of concern about where a progressive Anglicanism might take us, does not inform our future that much. Somehow our future needs to be both firm in our commitment to an orthodox Anglicanism and fair to our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters in Christ. I do not have an easy proposal to offer. Do you?
JUST IN: Ruth Gledhill reports on the posting of a motion re the C of E and ACNA ... February's GS for the C of E will be riveting!
“Without the Covenant the slow break up of world Anglicanism will continue unchecked.”--Peter Carrell
ReplyDeleteAnd with the Covenant, Peter, the break-up of world Anglicanism will proceed very rapidly thereafter.
And, Peter, adopting or not adopting the Covenant will have little if any affect in stopping the decline of Christianity in the West. This decline is happening in all denominations---conservative as well as liberal---and probably has many years to run yet.
Kurt Hill
Brooklyn, NY
Hi Kurt
ReplyDeleteYou could be right. The general position I take on all my prognostications is: I could be wrong!
That said, we might have to agree to disagree on "with the Covenant ... the break up of world Anglicanism will proceed very rapidly thereafter". I think the Global South indication is significant - a solid block which will sign the Covenant and not break up. I am confident that they will be joined by some Western Anglican provinces (Australia? Ireland? England? ... possibly even my own church?) ... thus the 'break up' could be into two blocs rather than more than two, the other bloc, as previously discussed, most likely led by TEC. But, I could be wrong!!
As for the decline of Christianity in the West: obviously the Covenant makes little difference to the whole future of all Christianity in the West, the Anglican Communion's contribution to that being small. But will the decline be faster or slower if progressive Christianity is more widely embraced in the West? My sense is 'faster'.
“But will the decline be faster or slower if progressive Christianity is more widely embraced in the West? My sense is 'faster'.”--Peter Carrell
ReplyDeleteI don’t think it has anything to do with “progressive Christianity.” The Southern Baptists are some of the most reactionary Christians in the USA, who made a sharp turn to the right decades ago, ruthlessly purging their progressives. It didn’t help. This past year, Southern Baptist researchers themselves predicted that they could lose half their membership by 2050 if they did not do more to change its mostly white, aging image.
Kurt Hill
Brooklyn USA
Hi Kurt
ReplyDeleteThe two situations are not necessarily exclusive! That is, both progressive and reactionary Christianity may be accelerators on the process of decline ... the future of Christianity could be 'right-of-centre' (so to speak). But that might be projectionist wishful thinking from me.
Down here in NZ, where I do not think we have a lot of 'Southern Baptist' type reactionary Christianity, I certainly think a greater embrace of progressive Christianity would be a disaster.
Look, Peter, I really don’t think that anti-gay, anti-women Christianity ultimately has any future in the West. Polls here show that much of the decline in participation in the traditionally more church-going USA is directly tied to rejection of the right-wing Evangelicalism that has dominated the landscape for the past 30 or 40 years. The “spillover effect” taints all religious organizations, progressives included. That, along with the growth of the Welfare State over the past 60 years, has resulted in the decline of Christianity in the West.
ReplyDeleteMany of the nations of the Global South are socio-economic basket cases. In such an environment, religious organizations of all kinds can grow and flourish as social network and support systems. If the Global South churches are so successful, then they can do more to help the needy of their own societies, rather than depending on handouts from the churches of the West. Given the current economic climate, we in the developed world should be devoting more resources to helping people closer to home who need financial support. There are 40 million hungry people in the USA, we don’t need to go abroad to find people to help!
Kurt Hill
Brooklyn USA
Hi Kurt
ReplyDeleteI agree that there is no future for an anti-gay anti-women Christianity in the West. Our point of disagreement (I suggest) is whether progressive Christianity is the only way to avoid being anti-gay and anti-women ... is the Roman Catholic church (for example) anti-women because it has a male only priesthood? Some would say 'yes' but many would say 'no'.
That Global South should depend less on handouts, not least because the handouts could be used closer to home feeding the poor that exist there is also not a point of disagreement.
As for the Welfare State's growth and Christianity's decline, I also agree that there is a connection.
“...is the Roman Catholic church (for example) anti-women because it has a male only priesthood? Some would say 'yes' but many would say 'no'.”---Peter Carrell
ReplyDeleteThe Roman Church is one of the most misogynous institutions on the face of the planet! And has historically been one of the most backward-facing denominations. It took the Papists 450 years to restore the Cup to the Laity, and to translate the Holy Eucharist into the languages of the people. Don’t be surprised if it takes them another 450 years to ordain and consecrate women clergy!
Kurt Hill
Brooklyn USA
Hi Kurt,
ReplyDeleteI think I would be struggling to convince my mother-in-law, her sister, my sisters-in-law, and quite a few other Catholic women friends and acquaintances of the truth of, "The Roman Church is one of the most misogynous institutions on the face of the planet! And has historically been one of the most backward-facing denominations."
"Don’t be surprised if it takes them another 450 years to ordain and consecrate women clergy!"
ReplyDeleteAt least Kurt appears to think Roman Catholicism will be around in 450 years!
(Which is roughly the time since the accession of Good Queen Bess and her 'settlement'.)
Would he wager that Anglicanism will still be around then? (A safe bet, as he won't be around to pay up if it's gone.)
After all, he has prophesied the Imminent Demise of Southern Baptists. (Cue 'Monty Python & Holy Grail': 'Bring out your dead!' 'I'm not dead yet!') Yet if they lose 50% of their membership by 2050, they will still be many times larger than Tec (if THAT still exists!). What really determines whether a denomination grows is whether you have children and evangelize - as well as immigration. The future will be more Mormon and RC, not Tec.
Undoubtedly Christianity is declining in the 'West'. But it continues to grow in Africa, Latin America and Asia, esp. China. But not in its liberal form.
And, you Anonymous, are optimistic to think that humanity will be around at all in 450 years on this planet.
ReplyDeleteKurt Hill
Brooklyn USA
"And, you Anonymous, are optimistic to think that humanity will be around at all in 450 years on this planet."
ReplyDeleteIt isn't 'optimism', it's called Christian Faith, Kurt: 'I believe in the resurrection of the body and the life everlasting' - not something Presiding Bishop Schori seems to believe in or care about, to judge by her own words on the subject.