The great question of Christmas is, 'Who is God?' The post below this reminds us that the answer to this question is hotly contested, even within the church. May this Christmas bring true enlightenment to the people who claim to know who God is!
Merry Christmas!!!!!!!!
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Here's to you Bishop Robinson, you speak more truth than you perhaps know
(With Hat-tip to Titus One Nine and the commenters there who draw attention to the last sentence below)
“I’m all for Rick Warren being at the table,” Bishop Robinson said, “but we’re not talking about a discussion, we’re talking about putting someone up front and center at what will be the most watched inauguration in history, and asking his blessing on the nation. And the God that he’s praying to is not the God that I know.”
“I’m all for Rick Warren being at the table,” Bishop Robinson said, “but we’re not talking about a discussion, we’re talking about putting someone up front and center at what will be the most watched inauguration in history, and asking his blessing on the nation. And the God that he’s praying to is not the God that I know.”
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Rochester in late run for Anglican of the Year
Ruth Gledhill must be on top of her Christmas preparation as she has taken time to post this lovely interview with +Michael Nazir-Ali, Bishop of Rochester. A taster below, read it all here:
"Q (Laughs). You’ve been labelled over the years a conservative Evangelical – I don’t know whether you approve of that or not. But your belief is in living a ‘biblical’ life.
A Yes, I call myself a Catholic Evangelical, because Evangelical means someone who’s loyal to the Gospel. That is what it means, and I hope I am – at least I try to be. And Catholic means someone who believes in the Church, and I try to.
Q So that we have a, a core of your belief – the core beliefs of the creed. I mean the Virgin Birth, the divinity of Christ, er the resurrection of the body, life after death, life everlasting – an interventionist God, is that right?
A I think the Bible gives us a framework for believing and knowing. That is not this text or that, but it gives us what I call er, a comprehensive anthropology, a way of understanding the human condition and the world in which we find ourselves. Now of course, that understanding and that framework has to be brought into relation to the world in which we live, to knowledge, and indeed to new knowledge. And if you believe in the biblical world view that doesn’t excuse you from relating to change in the world.
Q How does the biblical tradition interpret homosexuality then? Because there’s certainly a great deal of evidence recently of the nature of sexuality and er homosexual bonds and many theories about it of course. But you are rather rigorously disapproving – am I right?
A Mm, I’m not disapproving of anything. I g…I, again, I would go back to the anthropology of the Bible, which is that human beings have been made in God’s image. But being in God’s image also has implications for how we behave. And er, we have all sorts of inclinations for all sorts of reasons. Nevertheless, practising giving as it were, in to our inclinations er is not always according to God’s purpose or for human flourishing, or indeed for social flourishing.
Q And in that sense in biblical terms, homosexuals are not eligible for revocation to the priesthood?
A It’s not to do with who people think they are, or their inclinations, but what their behaviour should be. And that is also true of heterosexual people of course, that the Church demands the highest standards of belief, but of behaviour, from people and yes there are certain requirements for ordination for example.
Q Let’s talk about GAFCON, which is the Global Anglican Futures Conference. You took part in it. Is this an insurrection within the Anglican communion?
A No not at all – I mean I, I wasn’t there for the whole of it - I could only go for three days. I did discover a tremendous spiritual atmosphere. That was partly because it was in Jerusalem, of course, and that creates its own sort of evocativeness. But I found people who were from an Anglican Catholic background, charismatics em, Evangelicals, from all over the world – Africa, America, Asia, Australia and from this country – all with a sort of singleness of purpose, which I wish sometimes we could say about the whole of the Church.
Q And what was that single purpose?
A To reaffirm traditional, Christian belief as the Anglican Church had received it."
Nobody is perfect; I notice +Michael fails to mention New Zealand!!!
"Q (Laughs). You’ve been labelled over the years a conservative Evangelical – I don’t know whether you approve of that or not. But your belief is in living a ‘biblical’ life.
A Yes, I call myself a Catholic Evangelical, because Evangelical means someone who’s loyal to the Gospel. That is what it means, and I hope I am – at least I try to be. And Catholic means someone who believes in the Church, and I try to.
Q So that we have a, a core of your belief – the core beliefs of the creed. I mean the Virgin Birth, the divinity of Christ, er the resurrection of the body, life after death, life everlasting – an interventionist God, is that right?
A I think the Bible gives us a framework for believing and knowing. That is not this text or that, but it gives us what I call er, a comprehensive anthropology, a way of understanding the human condition and the world in which we find ourselves. Now of course, that understanding and that framework has to be brought into relation to the world in which we live, to knowledge, and indeed to new knowledge. And if you believe in the biblical world view that doesn’t excuse you from relating to change in the world.
Q How does the biblical tradition interpret homosexuality then? Because there’s certainly a great deal of evidence recently of the nature of sexuality and er homosexual bonds and many theories about it of course. But you are rather rigorously disapproving – am I right?
A Mm, I’m not disapproving of anything. I g…I, again, I would go back to the anthropology of the Bible, which is that human beings have been made in God’s image. But being in God’s image also has implications for how we behave. And er, we have all sorts of inclinations for all sorts of reasons. Nevertheless, practising giving as it were, in to our inclinations er is not always according to God’s purpose or for human flourishing, or indeed for social flourishing.
Q And in that sense in biblical terms, homosexuals are not eligible for revocation to the priesthood?
A It’s not to do with who people think they are, or their inclinations, but what their behaviour should be. And that is also true of heterosexual people of course, that the Church demands the highest standards of belief, but of behaviour, from people and yes there are certain requirements for ordination for example.
Q Let’s talk about GAFCON, which is the Global Anglican Futures Conference. You took part in it. Is this an insurrection within the Anglican communion?
A No not at all – I mean I, I wasn’t there for the whole of it - I could only go for three days. I did discover a tremendous spiritual atmosphere. That was partly because it was in Jerusalem, of course, and that creates its own sort of evocativeness. But I found people who were from an Anglican Catholic background, charismatics em, Evangelicals, from all over the world – Africa, America, Asia, Australia and from this country – all with a sort of singleness of purpose, which I wish sometimes we could say about the whole of the Church.
Q And what was that single purpose?
A To reaffirm traditional, Christian belief as the Anglican Church had received it."
Nobody is perfect; I notice +Michael fails to mention New Zealand!!!
Monday, December 22, 2008
GAFCON, Lambeth and the North American Province in retrospect
In life there are margins of tolerance. One chocolate will not cause obesity. A politician can survive a couple of faux-pas. A well-built house can survive a strong wind or a small earthquake. But life always involves consequences when margins of tolerance are exceeded. An earthquake over 8 on the Richter scale will topple even the strongest of buildings. In 2003 the election, confirmation and consecration of Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire and, to a lesser extent, the promulgation of the blessing of same sex partnerships in the Diocese of new Westminster exceeded margins of tolerance in the Anglican Communion. Five years later we have seen the consequences in three significant developments.
GAFCON in June was, on reflection, a singular achievement: an agreed theological statement was produced by a large group of quite diverse Anglicans gathered in one place. The contrast with Lambeth in July could not be greater: the bishops of the Communion gathered in one place could not - even without certain conservative bishops present - even conceive of attempting to come to an agreed conclusion to their deliberations. The consequence from 2003 is that the Anglican Communion as a whole is no longer a communion in the Christian sense of that word, a union of people bound by common truth; at best it can muster a reasonably large communion (i.e. GAFCON) from within its ranks, and a smaller communion (i.e. TEC and its supporters). But, as a world communion it is finished unless TEC and GAFCON reach a compromise. But precisely at this point of wondering when such a compromise might be reached the third development of the year answers our question: the new North American Province demonstrates both that no effort is being made to reach a compromise and that the limits to diversity within TEC were breached in 2003. The only practical way to contain the diversity in North American Anglicanism/Episcopalianism is for two provinces to exist side by side (in each of Canada and the USA).
It is time for the Anglican Communion Instruments of Unity to wake up to the reality of the situation and to stop all wishful thinking that the situation might be otherwise. Let 2009 be the Anglican Year of Reality with the goal of changing our self-identification from 'Communion' to 'Federation'!
GAFCON in June was, on reflection, a singular achievement: an agreed theological statement was produced by a large group of quite diverse Anglicans gathered in one place. The contrast with Lambeth in July could not be greater: the bishops of the Communion gathered in one place could not - even without certain conservative bishops present - even conceive of attempting to come to an agreed conclusion to their deliberations. The consequence from 2003 is that the Anglican Communion as a whole is no longer a communion in the Christian sense of that word, a union of people bound by common truth; at best it can muster a reasonably large communion (i.e. GAFCON) from within its ranks, and a smaller communion (i.e. TEC and its supporters). But, as a world communion it is finished unless TEC and GAFCON reach a compromise. But precisely at this point of wondering when such a compromise might be reached the third development of the year answers our question: the new North American Province demonstrates both that no effort is being made to reach a compromise and that the limits to diversity within TEC were breached in 2003. The only practical way to contain the diversity in North American Anglicanism/Episcopalianism is for two provinces to exist side by side (in each of Canada and the USA).
It is time for the Anglican Communion Instruments of Unity to wake up to the reality of the situation and to stop all wishful thinking that the situation might be otherwise. Let 2009 be the Anglican Year of Reality with the goal of changing our self-identification from 'Communion' to 'Federation'!
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Some further notes on Anglican evangelical identity
I begin with my thoughts, but feel free to skip those to get to the last part of the post where William Abraham has an interesting observation!
Perhaps we would make more progress if we recognised and delineated different forms of evangelicalism in our midst, and addressed how these differences affect the very process of trying to find some common ‘core’ or ‘centre’ around which we (might, hopefully will) unite.
Consider, for example, ‘Reformed evangelicalism’ (represented today in the Diocese of Sydney, in the Reform movement in England, and in the Church of England in South Africa) which not only draws on the Reformation (obviously) but leans heavily towards the theological commitments in the Reformation which led to the formation of ‘Reformed’ churches, distinguished on the European continent from Lutheran churches, and represented in Great Britain in the Presbyterian Church of Scotland and in the Puritan wing of the Church of England. Reformed evangelicalism is one form of conservative evangelicalism, but I do not think it is the only form of it. Another form of it sits more comfortably with Hooker’s critique of Puritanism, and with the historical development of Anglicanism which has re-embraced its Catholic (or, if you prefer, ‘catholic’ with a small ‘c’) heritage (that is, a re-formed-Catholic heritage). I am not sure if there is any particular label already applied to this form of evangelicalism (here I will call it Hookerian evangelicalism)*, but it is an important form since when we find dispute within the ranks of conservative evangelicals then the dispute is often between these two forms, probably to the bewilderment of participants who have not thought much about the significance of these differences. Another dispute within these ranks can arise between conservative evangelicals open to charismatic theology and practice and those critical of such theology and practice (here Hookerian evangelicals and Reformed evangelicals often find common cause).
Now, we can extend this line of thinking to name various other forms of Anglican evangelicalism and describe their points of difference. Causa brevitatis I will simply make an observation about Reformed and Hookerian evangelicalism (RE and HE respectively) – an observation, incidentally, which I am attempting to make as far as possible without endorsing who is right and who is wrong, because here I am interested in clarity (if possible) in understanding the road-blocks on the way to Anglican evangelical unity. Both forms of evangelicalism would emphasise their commitment to the authority of Scripture but in the context of the Anglican church, that is, current Anglican life historically grounded in the Reformation, RE understands the authority of Scripture (IMHO) in a way significantly different to HE. For RE ‘the authority of Scripture’ is a (or, the) supreme theological value so that everything is subject to critique by Scripture, including everything in the Anglican church. Effectively, nothing is sacred and nothing is immutable in the RE view of life, except for Scripture, its reading and its proclamation. The outstanding 2008 expression of this approach is the Diocese of Sydney agreeing to a resolution that means deacons may preside at the eucharist: Anglican orders, in the light of Scripture, are not immutable. By contrast HE understands the authority of Scripture in the historical context of the Anglican church: some matters of order and practice are immutable, their coherence with Scripture having been settled in the past. Clearly HE can be subject to sharp criticism from RE since HE decides on a case by case basis which matters are settled and which are not. “How come,” RE can say to HE, “priestly presidency is an immutable matter, but male priesthood is not”; for HE by and large has accepted female priests. Yet RE is not beyond criticism by HE: “How come RE wishes to remain Anglican while holding so few Anglican distinctives as immutable?” Not only is this significant difference, but it can be played up into a larger difference than it actually is, characterised in terms that appear to have a chasm between them: “Scripture” versus “Anglican”.
The reality is that both RE and HE are Scriptural and Anglican but the key to mutuality is understanding the special way in which RE is Anglican (through understanding that part of the English Reformation into which it is rooted and its deliberate distance from aspects of subsequent historical development of the Anglican church) and the special way in which HE is Scriptural (through understanding that changes it endorses (such as women’s ordination) are based on Scripture, and recognition that HE deliberately refrains from new Scriptural critique of various Anglican matters, on the basis that these are already established as coherent with Scripture.
All of which is to say, there is no substitute in any part of Anglicanism for respectful conversation: patiently exploring each other’s presuppositions, lovingly appreciating each other’s perspectives, carefully making proposals, and courageously receiving responses to those proposals.
[*'Hookerian evangelicalism' may seem a strange term, but we need something other than 'conservative evangelicalism' since, relative to Reformed evangelicalism, that term is imprecise, since RE is a form of conservative evangelicalism. 'Classical evangelicalism' is inappropriate since the current debate, in part, is a debate about whether RE or another is the true heir today to classical evangelicalism from the past; ditto 'mainstream evangelicalism'. A tempting contrast is 'Fulcrum or centrist or open evangelicalism', but Fulcrum in relation to its website is an interesting amalgam of conservative evangelicals, liberal evangelicals, open evangelicals, etc; 'centrist' in this context is much controverted, and 'open' appears to include evangelicals who can scarcely be described as 'conservative'].
William Abraham, in an essay 'Canonical Theism and Evangelicalism' in Canonical Theism: A Proposal for Theology and the Church (Eerdmans, 2008), after recalling the distinctive differences between the likes of Luther, Calvin, Edwards, Wesley, and Henry notes:
"evangelicalism is marked by an inner contrast and rivalry to bring to birth the heart of the Christian faith theologically and spiritually. Within the one family, the members have their own way of articulating its treasures and resources. This accounts for the internal tensions, the polemical edge, and the genuine differences of tone, practice, and content that are visible to the serious student."
"
Perhaps we would make more progress if we recognised and delineated different forms of evangelicalism in our midst, and addressed how these differences affect the very process of trying to find some common ‘core’ or ‘centre’ around which we (might, hopefully will) unite.
Consider, for example, ‘Reformed evangelicalism’ (represented today in the Diocese of Sydney, in the Reform movement in England, and in the Church of England in South Africa) which not only draws on the Reformation (obviously) but leans heavily towards the theological commitments in the Reformation which led to the formation of ‘Reformed’ churches, distinguished on the European continent from Lutheran churches, and represented in Great Britain in the Presbyterian Church of Scotland and in the Puritan wing of the Church of England. Reformed evangelicalism is one form of conservative evangelicalism, but I do not think it is the only form of it. Another form of it sits more comfortably with Hooker’s critique of Puritanism, and with the historical development of Anglicanism which has re-embraced its Catholic (or, if you prefer, ‘catholic’ with a small ‘c’) heritage (that is, a re-formed-Catholic heritage). I am not sure if there is any particular label already applied to this form of evangelicalism (here I will call it Hookerian evangelicalism)*, but it is an important form since when we find dispute within the ranks of conservative evangelicals then the dispute is often between these two forms, probably to the bewilderment of participants who have not thought much about the significance of these differences. Another dispute within these ranks can arise between conservative evangelicals open to charismatic theology and practice and those critical of such theology and practice (here Hookerian evangelicals and Reformed evangelicals often find common cause).
Now, we can extend this line of thinking to name various other forms of Anglican evangelicalism and describe their points of difference. Causa brevitatis I will simply make an observation about Reformed and Hookerian evangelicalism (RE and HE respectively) – an observation, incidentally, which I am attempting to make as far as possible without endorsing who is right and who is wrong, because here I am interested in clarity (if possible) in understanding the road-blocks on the way to Anglican evangelical unity. Both forms of evangelicalism would emphasise their commitment to the authority of Scripture but in the context of the Anglican church, that is, current Anglican life historically grounded in the Reformation, RE understands the authority of Scripture (IMHO) in a way significantly different to HE. For RE ‘the authority of Scripture’ is a (or, the) supreme theological value so that everything is subject to critique by Scripture, including everything in the Anglican church. Effectively, nothing is sacred and nothing is immutable in the RE view of life, except for Scripture, its reading and its proclamation. The outstanding 2008 expression of this approach is the Diocese of Sydney agreeing to a resolution that means deacons may preside at the eucharist: Anglican orders, in the light of Scripture, are not immutable. By contrast HE understands the authority of Scripture in the historical context of the Anglican church: some matters of order and practice are immutable, their coherence with Scripture having been settled in the past. Clearly HE can be subject to sharp criticism from RE since HE decides on a case by case basis which matters are settled and which are not. “How come,” RE can say to HE, “priestly presidency is an immutable matter, but male priesthood is not”; for HE by and large has accepted female priests. Yet RE is not beyond criticism by HE: “How come RE wishes to remain Anglican while holding so few Anglican distinctives as immutable?” Not only is this significant difference, but it can be played up into a larger difference than it actually is, characterised in terms that appear to have a chasm between them: “Scripture” versus “Anglican”.
The reality is that both RE and HE are Scriptural and Anglican but the key to mutuality is understanding the special way in which RE is Anglican (through understanding that part of the English Reformation into which it is rooted and its deliberate distance from aspects of subsequent historical development of the Anglican church) and the special way in which HE is Scriptural (through understanding that changes it endorses (such as women’s ordination) are based on Scripture, and recognition that HE deliberately refrains from new Scriptural critique of various Anglican matters, on the basis that these are already established as coherent with Scripture.
All of which is to say, there is no substitute in any part of Anglicanism for respectful conversation: patiently exploring each other’s presuppositions, lovingly appreciating each other’s perspectives, carefully making proposals, and courageously receiving responses to those proposals.
[*'Hookerian evangelicalism' may seem a strange term, but we need something other than 'conservative evangelicalism' since, relative to Reformed evangelicalism, that term is imprecise, since RE is a form of conservative evangelicalism. 'Classical evangelicalism' is inappropriate since the current debate, in part, is a debate about whether RE or another is the true heir today to classical evangelicalism from the past; ditto 'mainstream evangelicalism'. A tempting contrast is 'Fulcrum or centrist or open evangelicalism', but Fulcrum in relation to its website is an interesting amalgam of conservative evangelicals, liberal evangelicals, open evangelicals, etc; 'centrist' in this context is much controverted, and 'open' appears to include evangelicals who can scarcely be described as 'conservative'].
William Abraham, in an essay 'Canonical Theism and Evangelicalism' in Canonical Theism: A Proposal for Theology and the Church (Eerdmans, 2008), after recalling the distinctive differences between the likes of Luther, Calvin, Edwards, Wesley, and Henry notes:
"evangelicalism is marked by an inner contrast and rivalry to bring to birth the heart of the Christian faith theologically and spiritually. Within the one family, the members have their own way of articulating its treasures and resources. This accounts for the internal tensions, the polemical edge, and the genuine differences of tone, practice, and content that are visible to the serious student."
"
Saturday, December 20, 2008
The True [Anglican] / [Episcopalian] Communion in the USA
I had the pleasure of meeting Jordan Hylden at a conference last year on the Anglican Covenant. He is a very bright young man and, I think, very wise. He's written quite a few essays for First Things (a generally Catholic site). Here's a taster from his latest - it's worth reading the whole lot to get a wide 'perspective' on Anglican // Episcopalian developments in the USA:
"Some Episcopalians and Anglicans (myself included) strongly dislike these characterizations—to be genuinely Episcopalian, they believe, means to be in fellowship with the Anglican communion, and to be authentically Anglican is to be part of a global communion of catholic Christians united by creedal orthodoxy and a commitment to read Scripture, pray, and worship together in the historic Anglican tradition. But although this sounds wonderful in theory, it is simply not what has happened, by and large, in the American context. Because of what’s taken place over the past five years, Episcopalian is now understood to be a term set in opposition to Anglican, and Anglican refers not to a global catholic communion but rather to an American-African evangelical phenomenon. Whether we think the words ought to bear these meanings is not the point—my point is that this is what the words actually do mean, in newspapers and conversations and pulpits across the country.
Take, for instance, the widely publicized formation just this month of a new conservative Anglican province—the so-called Anglican Church in North America, with Robert Duncan as its new archbishop and primate. By taking the name Anglican for themselves, the clear implication is that the Anglican Church of Canada and the Episcopal Church are not in fact authentically Anglican, since they need to be completely replaced. In this, they are only following the practice of previous breakaway groups, such as the Nigerian-based CANA (Convocation of Anglicans in North America) and the Rwandan-based AMiA (Anglican Mission in America). The commonplace notion that Anglican means “not Episcopalian” is no coincidence; this is precisely the conclusion that the average church-going American would reasonably draw from following the news.
Moreover, the vision of Anglicanism here in play clearly gives very little weight to catholic order and global communion. The new Anglican church was created, as it were, by fiat— Duncan’s forthcoming elevation as archbishop, and the new group’s status as an Anglican province, are thus far only self-declared realities. And although Duncan’s group and his supporters have asked for approval from the global Anglican instruments of communion, they have also made it clear that they do not consider such approval to be necessary. Duncan and his allies enjoy the support of five evangelical Anglican primates, mostly African and all associated with the confessional GAFCON movement. This is, forthrightly, all the approval that the new church supposes itself to need; apart from this, Duncan’s group considers itself authorized to go it on its own. If ordinary Americans are expected to suppose that Anglican means something other than a conservative evangelical movement with liturgy and bishops, it cannot be from reading the daily headlines.
Episcopalians, for their part, genuinely do see themselves first and foremost as an autonomous, liberal American denomination. Their election of Gene Robinson as the church’s first openly gay bishop, of course, along with their practice (in many dioceses) of liturgically blessing same-sex unions, has led to a great deal of turmoil. But despite being asked many times by the Anglican instruments of communion to reverse course for the sake of Anglican unity, Episcopalians show little sign of doing so. By and large, Episcopalians like Bishop Robinson; as one friend of mine remarked, the thing about Robinson isn’t that he’s theologically unique as an Episcopalian, it’s that he’s so typical. Most Episcopalians are very content with their church’s position on homosexuality, as well as with the church’s general doctrinal haziness; such things are not about to change anytime soon. Even though holding to such positions may well mean walking apart from other Anglicans, the majority of the church views this as an unfortunate but acceptable necessity. In short, it seems clear that for most Episcopalians, the core of their identity lies elsewhere than their status as Anglicans.
All in all, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the commonplace definitions of Anglican and Episcopalian in the American public lexicon have their roots not simply in confusion or misunderstanding, but in what has actually happened on the ground. Many may view these realities as unfortunate, but that does not change the fact that they have indeed become realities. If these words are to change in their popular meaning, they will have to change also in fact. And to do so will mean fighting an uphill battle against the forces that have given them their current definitions."
FOOTNOTE: Damian Thompson in his Daily Telegraph blog has also sighted and responded to Jordan Hylden's article. Among his comments are these, with a memorable image at the end!
"Conservative Anglicans in America are busy building an autonomous province, the Anglican Church in North America, headed by the Most Rev Robert Duncan, who was until recently Bishop of Pittsburgh and is a completely kosher (as it were) Anglican bishop within the jurisdiction of the Province of the Southern Cone. Whether he will be an authentic archbishop of a new province is doubtful, shall we say - but, then, whether The Episcopal Church (TEC) can remain part of the Anglican Communion is also doubtful. Don't be fooled by those fancy chasubles: in many respects it's already an independent, DIY denomination whose modus operandi is closer in style to that of Unitarian Universalism than to apostolic Catholic/Orthodox Christianity.
What we're witnessing, in other words, is a multi-vehicle pile-up on the Anglican freeway. So much for the breathing space that Rowan is supposed to have created at his triumphant Lambeth Conference."
The freeway image could be taken in another way: ++Rowan has created the opportunity for the road to fork so that no crash occurs ... and the question is whether both roads are included in the Anglican roading system, or just one of them! But I like Damian Thompson's description of TEC: "in many respects it's already an independent, DIY denomination whose modus operandi is closer in style to that of Unitarian Universalism than to apostolic Catholic/Orthodox Christianity". Spot on!
"Some Episcopalians and Anglicans (myself included) strongly dislike these characterizations—to be genuinely Episcopalian, they believe, means to be in fellowship with the Anglican communion, and to be authentically Anglican is to be part of a global communion of catholic Christians united by creedal orthodoxy and a commitment to read Scripture, pray, and worship together in the historic Anglican tradition. But although this sounds wonderful in theory, it is simply not what has happened, by and large, in the American context. Because of what’s taken place over the past five years, Episcopalian is now understood to be a term set in opposition to Anglican, and Anglican refers not to a global catholic communion but rather to an American-African evangelical phenomenon. Whether we think the words ought to bear these meanings is not the point—my point is that this is what the words actually do mean, in newspapers and conversations and pulpits across the country.
Take, for instance, the widely publicized formation just this month of a new conservative Anglican province—the so-called Anglican Church in North America, with Robert Duncan as its new archbishop and primate. By taking the name Anglican for themselves, the clear implication is that the Anglican Church of Canada and the Episcopal Church are not in fact authentically Anglican, since they need to be completely replaced. In this, they are only following the practice of previous breakaway groups, such as the Nigerian-based CANA (Convocation of Anglicans in North America) and the Rwandan-based AMiA (Anglican Mission in America). The commonplace notion that Anglican means “not Episcopalian” is no coincidence; this is precisely the conclusion that the average church-going American would reasonably draw from following the news.
Moreover, the vision of Anglicanism here in play clearly gives very little weight to catholic order and global communion. The new Anglican church was created, as it were, by fiat— Duncan’s forthcoming elevation as archbishop, and the new group’s status as an Anglican province, are thus far only self-declared realities. And although Duncan’s group and his supporters have asked for approval from the global Anglican instruments of communion, they have also made it clear that they do not consider such approval to be necessary. Duncan and his allies enjoy the support of five evangelical Anglican primates, mostly African and all associated with the confessional GAFCON movement. This is, forthrightly, all the approval that the new church supposes itself to need; apart from this, Duncan’s group considers itself authorized to go it on its own. If ordinary Americans are expected to suppose that Anglican means something other than a conservative evangelical movement with liturgy and bishops, it cannot be from reading the daily headlines.
Episcopalians, for their part, genuinely do see themselves first and foremost as an autonomous, liberal American denomination. Their election of Gene Robinson as the church’s first openly gay bishop, of course, along with their practice (in many dioceses) of liturgically blessing same-sex unions, has led to a great deal of turmoil. But despite being asked many times by the Anglican instruments of communion to reverse course for the sake of Anglican unity, Episcopalians show little sign of doing so. By and large, Episcopalians like Bishop Robinson; as one friend of mine remarked, the thing about Robinson isn’t that he’s theologically unique as an Episcopalian, it’s that he’s so typical. Most Episcopalians are very content with their church’s position on homosexuality, as well as with the church’s general doctrinal haziness; such things are not about to change anytime soon. Even though holding to such positions may well mean walking apart from other Anglicans, the majority of the church views this as an unfortunate but acceptable necessity. In short, it seems clear that for most Episcopalians, the core of their identity lies elsewhere than their status as Anglicans.
All in all, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the commonplace definitions of Anglican and Episcopalian in the American public lexicon have their roots not simply in confusion or misunderstanding, but in what has actually happened on the ground. Many may view these realities as unfortunate, but that does not change the fact that they have indeed become realities. If these words are to change in their popular meaning, they will have to change also in fact. And to do so will mean fighting an uphill battle against the forces that have given them their current definitions."
FOOTNOTE: Damian Thompson in his Daily Telegraph blog has also sighted and responded to Jordan Hylden's article. Among his comments are these, with a memorable image at the end!
"Conservative Anglicans in America are busy building an autonomous province, the Anglican Church in North America, headed by the Most Rev Robert Duncan, who was until recently Bishop of Pittsburgh and is a completely kosher (as it were) Anglican bishop within the jurisdiction of the Province of the Southern Cone. Whether he will be an authentic archbishop of a new province is doubtful, shall we say - but, then, whether The Episcopal Church (TEC) can remain part of the Anglican Communion is also doubtful. Don't be fooled by those fancy chasubles: in many respects it's already an independent, DIY denomination whose modus operandi is closer in style to that of Unitarian Universalism than to apostolic Catholic/Orthodox Christianity.
What we're witnessing, in other words, is a multi-vehicle pile-up on the Anglican freeway. So much for the breathing space that Rowan is supposed to have created at his triumphant Lambeth Conference."
The freeway image could be taken in another way: ++Rowan has created the opportunity for the road to fork so that no crash occurs ... and the question is whether both roads are included in the Anglican roading system, or just one of them! But I like Damian Thompson's description of TEC: "in many respects it's already an independent, DIY denomination whose modus operandi is closer in style to that of Unitarian Universalism than to apostolic Catholic/Orthodox Christianity". Spot on!
Williams' Wisdom
The story of ++Rowan being interviewed by the New Statesman is doing the rounds. Intriguing what kind of news mountain can be made out of a molehill of a comment. Always best to read the whole interview - a taste of which is here, reminding us that, above all else ++Rowan is a wise man:
"If the Archbishop is exercised about social and political issues, he is relaxed about the wave of fashionably atheistic books from writers such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens that have become bestsellers. The Archbishop, who was in New York on 11 September 2001, and got caught up in its horrors (at one point, in an incident he did not publicise, becoming trapped in the stairwell of a building he was meant to be speaking in), partly attributes this latest trend to the events of that day.
'Dawkins certainly wrote a very sharply worded piece immediately after 9/11, and I think he's still in some way trading on that capital. People say that the public needs mythical figures in every generation - the famous atheist, the loony bishop, the womanising politician. Well, Richard Dawkins has gleefully stepped into the role of famous atheist, and does it with tremendous panache.'
However, he is inclined to agree with those Christians concerned about a wave of 'secular fundamentalism' spreading across western Europe. 'There's a very wide assumption among commentators that the secular position is obvious, the default setting of the human mind. I'm very wary of any philosophy that says, 'The default setting is clear, and if you don't find it you're slightly odd', like in the Soviet Union, where if you disagreed with the system, then you were off to a psychiatric hospital.
'We're not there, but there is this little edge sometimes that says, 'This is the natural human position and if you don't hold this position then we've got a problem with you.' It systematically ignores the constructive role of religion in art, politics, imagination. I would say to myself and other believers, don't panic about the rise of these things. Engage, as sensibly and carefully as you can, until the argument is made.' "
This keeps the ABC in the running for Anglican of the Year (as judged by this blog). But I thank a commenter recently who presented the name of a good keen man in the States; and I think the woman writing to the Bishop of Tennessee (see post below) are worthy names on the shortlist ... which can be added to by you!
"If the Archbishop is exercised about social and political issues, he is relaxed about the wave of fashionably atheistic books from writers such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens that have become bestsellers. The Archbishop, who was in New York on 11 September 2001, and got caught up in its horrors (at one point, in an incident he did not publicise, becoming trapped in the stairwell of a building he was meant to be speaking in), partly attributes this latest trend to the events of that day.
'Dawkins certainly wrote a very sharply worded piece immediately after 9/11, and I think he's still in some way trading on that capital. People say that the public needs mythical figures in every generation - the famous atheist, the loony bishop, the womanising politician. Well, Richard Dawkins has gleefully stepped into the role of famous atheist, and does it with tremendous panache.'
However, he is inclined to agree with those Christians concerned about a wave of 'secular fundamentalism' spreading across western Europe. 'There's a very wide assumption among commentators that the secular position is obvious, the default setting of the human mind. I'm very wary of any philosophy that says, 'The default setting is clear, and if you don't find it you're slightly odd', like in the Soviet Union, where if you disagreed with the system, then you were off to a psychiatric hospital.
'We're not there, but there is this little edge sometimes that says, 'This is the natural human position and if you don't hold this position then we've got a problem with you.' It systematically ignores the constructive role of religion in art, politics, imagination. I would say to myself and other believers, don't panic about the rise of these things. Engage, as sensibly and carefully as you can, until the argument is made.' "
This keeps the ABC in the running for Anglican of the Year (as judged by this blog). But I thank a commenter recently who presented the name of a good keen man in the States; and I think the woman writing to the Bishop of Tennessee (see post below) are worthy names on the shortlist ... which can be added to by you!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)