[...]  Update 9/14/07: Per Caritatem has a new post on the Orombi’s article here. [...]

As an ex-Anglican priest, I was a bit offended by Archbishop Orombi’s assertion that Cranmer, Latimer, and Ridley died for the same faith as the ancient martyrs. Those men gave their life in protest of transubstantiation and papal jurisdiction. This is quite different than dying for the precepts of Gospel and the creed. Of course, a more radical Protestant would equivocate the “pure Gospel” of Protestantism with the ancient faith of the first few centuries, but I don’t think it is responsible for an Anglican make such an assertion.

I was a little surprised that a comment like that made it through the editorial chopping block at First Things.

At the risk of provoking my evangelical Anglican friends, I must confess to a certain disappointment upon reading Archbishop Orombi’s article. The Archbishop wrote: “In the Church of Uganda, Anglicanism has been built on three pillars: martyrs, revival, and the historic episcopate.” As I understand his argument, he then proposes that the Anglican Communion could benefit from a return to these “Reformation” principles. However, I am unable to see how the three pillars, as he describes and defines them, are distinctively Anglican in any way - they are, in sum, historical characteristics of the church through history, but not in any way uniquely Anglican. Moreover, I think that the Archbishop overemphasizes the evangelical aspect of historical Anglicanism in his article at the expense of the catholic strand of Anglican life in order to justify the burgeoning insurrection by the Global South against the Archbishop of Canterbury. One of the many virtues of Anglicanism is the balance between the evangelical and catholic aspects of the faith. I rediscovered a wonderful quote from the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Michael Ramsey, the other day, and it is appropriate to quote it here:

“Anglicanism possesses full catholicity only if it is faithful to the gospel of God, and it is fully evangelical insofar as it upholds the Church order by which an important aspect of the gospel is set forth. Hence ‘catholicism’ and ‘evangelicalism’ are not two separate things, which the Church of England must hold together by a great feat of compromise. Rightly understood, they are both realities that lie behind the Church of England, and as the New Testament shows, they are one reality; and any church’s witness to the one Church of the ages is part of its witness to the gospel of God.”

I respectfully submit that the way the Archbishop proposes will risk reducing Anglicanism to a series of denominations each proposing its own emphases as the true Anglican gospel. And why now? No one in Anglicanism seemed to object when the American church sanctioned abortion through its official organs, and yet we must have doctrinal purity now on the issue of a bishop with same-sex partner. Other American bishops have denied the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, etc., and yet business went on as usual. I think that the traditional emphasis of Anglicanism on the imperfection of the church (see, e.g., Article XIX of the Articles of Religion, “As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred, so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith.”) is a healthy reminder that we have an obligation to Body of Christ to strive for unity and resist the evangelical (donatist?) tendency toward fissiparousness when confronted with fallen humanity within the church itself.

Thanks for posing a fascinating question, and kudos on your wonderful blog.

[...] I think it’s important to draw your attention to the newest conversation at Per Caritatem, “What is Anglicanism?” Cynthia refers to the article in First Things by Archbishop Henry Luke Orombi of Uganda, which some [...]

I’d like to point out, in response to Millinerd’s comments, that being Anglican does not entail NOT being catholic, as Anglicans clearly assert apostolic succession. It’s no small matter that in 1966 Pope Paul VI not only embraced the Archbishop of Canterbury, Michael Ramsey, but also gave him the papal diamond and emerald ring, still worn by Archbishops today. One might disagree about Anglicans being catholic, as one might agree with Rome about the Orthodox. But to assert that Anglicans simply don’t understand themselves as catholic, and therefore might as well just be Protestant, is tantamount to asserting that the Orthodox don’t understand themselves, and is frankly offensive to many. (I’d add that it’s a gross simplification of what it means to be protestant). In this way, Orombi’s articulation of the essence of Anglicanism is historically inaccurate and is not a reflection of views held by the majority of Anglican theologians today. I think this is sympathetic to Anxious Anglican’s comments.
Cheers!
Dan

Cynthia,
As someone on the “liberal catholic” end of the Episcopal spectrum, I agree with you (and Williams) that we need the more evangelical wing as a balance. The trouble is that Anglican evangelicals are becoming more rigidly “biblicist” at a time, ironically, when many other evangelicals (such as my neighbors at Fuller seminary, from whom I learn a lot) are becoming less so. Rowan Greer has a recent book on the history of Anglican interpretations of scripture, which gives good background on this subject.

What is being lost, and is notably absent from Orombi’s article, is an important Anglican tradition of “reserve” in pressing dogmatic assertions. This is now dismissed as “fudge,” an accusation that, while sometimes justified, itself reflects the rationalistic modernism these same conservative critics decry. Properly understood (as by R. Williams himself), this reserve is akin, perhaps in an old-fashioned “British” way–but hey, what’s wrong with that?– to an Eastern Orthodox approach to theologizing.

Of course, this approach has to be grounded in a contemplative discipline centered on a rich liturgical tradition and the spirituality of the Eastern as well as the Western church fathers, and it may be true that in some cases this foundation is ignored or taken for granted. The irony, however, is that many gay Episcopalians are more committed to this tradition, and the belief that emerges from it (lex orandi…), than some of the people who cannot accept them.

In the end, we may end up with a split like that between the ELCA and the Missouri Synod, or PC(USA) and the PCA (which also seems to be getting more rigid about biblical inerrancy, or so I understand). This would be a great shame, since one of the gifts of Anglicanism had been to show how different “parties” could co-exist in the same ecclesial structure without a centralized authority.

Dear Patrick,

Thank you for your comments, as it is very helpful to hear from as many points of view as possible. As I commented earlier, I sympathize with many of the comments already posted with regard to the importance of liturgy and catholicity. However, I am also sympathetic to the concerns from the evangelical “side”. Here I will try to be as honest as possible without offending anyone—a task that is likely impossible—yet, I would be in-authentic not to speak from my own convictions. When you say that “what is being lost, and is notably absent from Orombi’s article, is an important Anglican tradition of ‘reserve’ in pressing dogmatic assertions. This is now dismissed as ‘fudge,’ an accusation that, while sometimes justified, itself reflects the rationalistic modernism these same conservative critics decry”, I wonder if the more aggressive or less reserved approach from the conservative wings has to do with the long history in the American Episcopalian Church of failing to deal with serious doctrinal/theological/biblical issues. As a local (purposely unnamed) Episcopal priest explained to me today, there have been a number of bishops and priests within the Episcopal church (he named Spong, Pike and several others and had quotes from their works) who have basically taught (in my opinion) truly erroneous and even heretical positions (I rarely use the word heresy—check my blog posts for confirmation)—e.g., denying the deity of Christ, rejecting or “revising” Trinitarian formulations that have been established by early ecumenical church councils. Yet, these men were allowed to continue as representatives of Christ, administering the sacraments and denying the Word of God its authority and power. If that is what is meant by being evangelical (and I realize that the term evangelical has kind of a wax nose feel to it), then I am at the core of my being just that—evangelical, and I think that there is something to be said for a “prophetic witness” in the more “conservative” quarters being raised up to stand against teachings that tear the fabric of the historic Christian faith (John Paul II in fact strongly criticized the American Episcopal Church for allowing a number of heretical teachings to be promulgated without disciplinary action by the Church—in my opinion that is just as much a “prophetic” ministry as other forms of prophetic ministry that speak out against various forms of oppression and those who would deny any human being (regardless of their sexual orientation) to be treated with dignity. It seems to me that the very same lack of reserve took place in the American Episcopal Church with regard to the first instances of ordaining women (contra the way this was done in the Anglican church where a theological study was offered and accepted before any women was ordained), as well as the ordination of a practicing gay bishop in 2003. Here I quote R. Williams’ speech,

“But the decision of the Episcopal Church to elect a practising gay man as a bishop was taken without even the American church itself (which has had quite a bit of discussion of the matter) having formally decided as a local Church what it thinks about blessing same-sex partnerships.

There are other fault lines of division, of course, including the legitimacy of ordaining women as priests and bishops. But (as has often been forgotten) the Lambeth Conference did resolve that for the time being those churches that did ordain women as priests and bishops and those that did not had an equal place within the Anglican spectrum. Women bishops attended the last Lambeth Conference. There is a fairly general (though not universal) recognition that differences about this can still be understood within the spectrum of manageable diversity about what the Bible and the tradition make possible. On the issue of practising gay bishops, there has been no such agreement, and it is not unreasonable to seek for a very much wider and deeper consensus before any change is in view, let alone foreclosing the debate by ordaining someone, whatever his personal merits, who was in a practising gay partnership. The recent resolutions of the General Convention have not produced a complete response to the challenges of the Windsor Report, but on this specific question there is at the very least an acknowledgement of the gravity of the situation in the extremely hard work that went into shaping the wording of the final formula.

Very many in the Anglican Communion would want the debate on the substantive ethical question to go on as part of a general process of theological discernment; but they believe that the pre-emptive action taken in 2003 in the US has made such a debate harder not easier, that it has reinforced the lines of division and led to enormous amounts of energy going into ‘political’ struggle with and between churches in different parts of the world” (emphases added).

Please feel free to correct anything that I have said above—as I am an outsider, but not a totally uneducated outsider, as I am in dialogue with a number of Anglicans/Episcopalians from both “sides”. I would hate to see the Anglican world join the splintered reality of most of Protestantism, and I agree that change within the Church must proceed slowly (with reserve). In sum, I suppose what I am trying to point out is that the tendencies and characteristics that are often (rightly) attributed to what I would call “radical conservatives” also seem to be present with “radical liberals” operating under a prophetic mantle which also strikes me as underpinned by a number of Enlightenment presuppositions—though they are both at opposite ends of the spectrum, they have a number of striking (formal) resemblances.

Trying to be authentic,
Cynthia

Dan writes, “in 1966 Pope Paul VI not only embraced the Archbishop of Canterbury, Michael Ramsey, but also gave him the papal diamond and emerald ring, still worn by Archbishops today.” Among those that Cynthia just mentioned, a few things have happened since 1966.

I’m sure it’s not a newsflash to anyone here that such developments have effectively chilled (and potentially killed) both the Catholic/Anglican and Orthodox/Anglican dialogue.

Hi Dan,

Thanks for linking the IARCCUM document. In my albeit brief perusal of it, I was very encouraged by the continued dialogue between Anglicans and Roman Catholics (which seems to flesh out what is written in Unitatis Redintegratio. I was also very encouraged to learn that the Anglican Church sought out assistance from the RCC with regard to the 2004 Windsor Report.

Again thanks to all who have contributed comments and kept this conversation “live.”

Best wishes,
Cynthia

Cynthia,
Yesterday I submitted a response to yours–did it not get through? Patrick

As a former Episcopal priest, I found Bishop Orombi’s article inspiring. Here is the evangelical wing of Anglicanism at its best and most powerful. When confronted with men and women who are willing to lay down their lives for the Lord, all I can do is silently, and perhaps not so silently, give praise to God. I am humbled. I know that my faith has never burned so brightly–not even close. I know that Bishop Orombi and I are probably disagree radically on sacraments and ecclesiology, but I honor the man and his witness. May the Lord mightily bless his work.

Dear Cynthia,
You may be interested in this article by Joan Chittister, which well describes the dilemmas of churches struggling with change. No solutions here, but some good formulations of the difficulty of handling the process of testing the spirits in today’s culture.
http://ncrcafe.org/node/1336
[this is just food for your reflections, so feel free not to post this. If the link above doesn't work, the article has been excerpted on various Episcopal blogs]
Patrick

Who are we? What exactly is Anglicanism’s brilliance? Where is the center of gravity? Where does it stand in relation to the whole church. I have never come upon Christian believers of any sort who answers these questions more clearly than the Abp Orombi’s evangelical simplicity, earnstness, and purity of heart that the gospel asks of us. The Apb represents the antiquity and nobility of the word evangelical. The U.S.’s (and indeed the northern hemisphere in general) brand of evangelicanism has become a bit wobbly and has too many meanings - anyone who claimed to be born again fell into that category. The American press loves to use the word as code for middle-class religion. Historically, it simply referred to the gospel. The evangelicanism that Abp Orombi speaks of, I think, is not necessarily the milieu of listings from Billy Graham to Dallas Theological Seminaries, but rather in his own words:

“The legacy of the East African Revival is its strong emphasis on the need for a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. This emphasis is not unique to Uganda; it is a part of historic Anglicanism, especially in its Reformation heritage and the evangelical tradition. I long for the day when the global reputation of Anglicans is our insistence on a relationship with Jesus Christ that is characterized by personal experience and repentance, and shared through testimonies. “Oh, those Anglicans! How they always talk about a personal relationship with Jesus Christ!”’