Print This Post
Anglican Discussions in the Blog-o-sphere
Published by Cynthia R. Nielsen July 15th, 2008 in AnglicanismFr. Dan at “Catholic in the Third Millennium” blog has a series of provocative and insightful posts related to recent events in the Anglican world. Even if one doesn’t agree with him on every point, the posts are well worth the read. If there are other thoughtful discussions that you’ve come across in the blog-o-sphere (opposing as well as agreeing with the posts below), please let me know. (Given my current workload–preparing lectures for a new class that I will be teaching in the fall, I will not be able to participate in a discussion on the posts below. However, I would love to hear from you, pro or con).
1. Personal Reflections for Remaining in TEC.
2. The Problem with Confessionalism.
3. Restating a Third Mill Catholic Prophecy.
4. Response to Al Kimel (new).
14 Responses to “Anglican Discussions in the Blog-o-sphere”
- 1 Pingback on Jul 17th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
- 2 Pingback on Jul 19th, 2008 at 11:34 am
- 3 Pingback on Jul 21st, 2008 at 9:57 am
Hi Cynthia,
You might check out the group blogging as “Anglican Centrist,” which I find mirrors many of my views. From the ground level of my own middle-of-the-road Episcopal parish, which includes moderate liberals and conservatives, the idea that TEC is persecuting anybody, or is denying fundamental Christian beliefs, is wildly exaggerated. A couple of families who took a hard conservative line did leave us a while back, but no one pushed them and we were sad to see them go. Maybe this is an atavistic Anglican trait, but I think many of my fellow parishioners were prefer to think of people who wander a bit from creedal orthodoxy as eccentrics rather than as heretics, and expect them to wander back again in time, often the better for their excursion into doubt. The common attention to, and participation in, a strong eucharist-centered liturgy is a key stabilizing factor, and it’s interesting that no one wants to tinker with it.
Cynthia, I found this article on Gafcon by Bp. Tom Wright to be very illuminating. Classic NT Wright
http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=324
Thanks for the NT Wright article link. Wright, as usual, makes a number of excellent points. With Wright, though I am “on board” with the vast majority of the theological points emphasized by GAFCON, I get extremely nervous with some of GAFCON’s rhetoric–the idea that if you are not with us, then you are promoting the liberal agenda sounds way too much like what I’ve just come from in the Presbyterian world. I know that the situation is much more complicated than I can imagine (especially for those in the US and Canada who have experienced some pretty nasty ecclesiastical “power moves”), so I want to be open to hearing all sides, but, as I said, some of the rhetoric makes me uneasy.
I don’t believe that most who are really struggling with the present direction of the Episcopal Church will find Fr Daniel Dunlap’s reflections very helpful. Basically he seems to be saying, Episcopalians are all over the place theologically, but the TEC and Anglican Communion still formally retain catholic creeds and catholic orders, so there’s no imperative to break communion. As Fr Dunlap writes, “the only thing that really matters at the end of the day is the Church’s credo, not our individual “credos,” and endeavoring to live into it.”
This, of course, has been precisely the line advanced by most orthodox Episcopalians during the past thirty years. It is a failed strategy, and it ignores the political, theological, and ecclesial and seminary realities now confronting the “orthodox” (however one draws the lines of “orthodoxy”).
Thirty-five years ago, catholic Anglicans were generally convinced that the ordination of women to the priesthood/episcopate is contrary to the will of Christ; but they decided, with a few exceptions, to remain within the Episcopal Church. What happened? That generation of catholic Anglicans eventually retired and died. Some got with the program. Seminaries and bishops, meanwhile, carefully weeded out the opponents of women’s ordination from the prospective ordinand pool. Thirty-five years later we find that a new orthodoxy has been successfully imposed, the opponents of women’s ordination marginalized, and the understanding of “catholic” re-defined. Twenty years ago one might have been forgiven for thinking that it was still possible to reverse this situation, but surely no one can persuasively argue this any longer.
Something very similar is now happening on the question of the meaning of Holy Matrimony and the moral legitimacy of same-sex unions. The blessing of same-sex unions is now widely accepted and practiced in the Episcopal Church. New ordinands are expected to support this policy and the doctrine underlying it. Perhaps some freedom to oppose this policy is still allowed in some dioceses (presumably Texas); but the number of such dioceses decline every year. A new orthodoxy is being imposed.
The history of the Episcopal Church over the past thirty-five years demonstrate the hard truth of Neuhaus’s Law: “Wherever orthodoxy is optional, it sooner or later will be proscribed.”
Of course, if one supports these changes, then no problem is posed, nor is a problem posed if one can “live with” these changes. Anglicans have remarkable adaptive abilities and who wants to spend all their time and energy fighting against the inevitable.
The new developments are indeed regrettable, but they are certainly not surprising, particularly in light of Rowan Williams’s leadership failures. Perhaps the crisis was beyond Canterbury, no matter who was archbishop; but the failures are real and tragic nonetheless. The bishops and priests of the global south have learned their lessons from the past three decades. They know that extraordinary action is necessary to preserve and maintain “orthodoxy” within the Anglican Communion.
Of course, this “orthodoxy” is an evangelical orthodoxy, which no doubt makes catholic-leaning folks like Dunlap uncomfortable. It’s not that the evangelical are too confessional; it that’s the content of their confession, combined with a certain style of churchmanship and liturgy, isn’t catholic enough. Earlier generations of Anglo-Catholics had no problems imposing catholic orthodoxy. Nowadays, those in the Episcopal Church who call themselves “catholic” prefer a more inclusive approach and thus are willing to tolerate various degrees of “heterodoxy. This tolerance is now alleged to be an Anglican virtue. Is it a virtue? How much tolerance is appropriate and when does it become ecclesiologically destructive? I well understand the desire to avoid the confessional warfare that has plagued the Reformed and Lutheran traditions, but the avoidance of such warfare also brings its own problems. It is difficult, with a denominational framework, to see the way forward. At least the GAFCON bishops had the courage to try something new, rather than simply acquiescing to the status quo.
Correction, to next to last paragraph, 1st sentence, which should read:
“The new GAFCON developments are indeed regretable …”
Your retelling of the history of TEC and the Anglican Comm. over the past century will indeed be compelling to many who keep up with such matters, especially those of a right wing mind. You already know that I demur, especially with your judgment of Abp. Williams leadership. But at this moment, I want to examine what we mean by what orthodoxy is and is not.
I doubt many would believe that Orthodoxy is some static, archival type monolith. Few would admit to that after Newman. Yet, many talk like this when they’re referring to the Anglican Communions supposed rejection of or lack of support for a wholehearted orthodoxy. Yet, what exactly are we suggesting that they’re rejecting by jettisoning a necessary orthodoxy among participants in the Anglican Communion. When one reads something by Bishop Spong, it’s a bit of a easy sport to point out all the ways in which he’s a heretic. Read Bp. Wright, the Apbs of York and Canterbury, Ellen Charry at PTSEM, Rev. Kate Sonderregger at VTS, or many of the southern cone Bishops and it’s hard to deny their orthodoxy. Is it really the case that there has been an overwhelming turn to heresy among Anglicans? No. Is it the case that orthodoxy has been made optional? Well, if you subtely infer that orthodoxy demands keeping women away from the altar, then yes. But orthodoxy is and always has been more complex and interesting than that.
The Church has always been a place in which theologians have taken risks and have been rewarded or punished for taking those risks. But even Arius wasn’t accused of making Orthodoxy optional. His views, rather, were declared heretical, and not by way of foreknowledge on the part of the council members, but rather by vote of the council. Orthodoxy happens as a church practice, and it develops. Therefore, it’s not surprising that may Anglo-catholic parishes now welcome women at the altar, and gladly.
And as for a new understanding of catholicity, i’m not sure what you mean by that, as I take my understanding of catholicity in no small part from the documents of Vatican II and the writing surrounding the council. Just as the writing of Vatican II takes a more “inclusive approach” as you put it toward addressing the concerns that the church has for the world, I think that we continue to see ecumenical councils, like those between Orthodox and the Roman churches, as well as the writings of Ratzinger and Williams taking the same tack. But I don’t think that’s all “catholic” means. Nor do I think that those like Williams and Wright, who I presume you’re implicating, would agree that catholic is a justification for accepting heterodoxy, nor do I think you could find textual support for this claim.
By the way, thanks for the link, Patrick!
Dan, I sought in my comment to address the present situation in the Episcopal Church, and you respond by invoking the orthodoxy of N. T. Wright, Ellen Charry, and Rowan Williams. Let’s not keep our heads in the sand. Having served as a parish priest in the Episcopal Church for 25 years in four different dioceses, I think I have some small acquaintance with the theological and ecclesial realities, and in my judgment the Episcopal Church has indeed, as a whole, been moving in a heterodox direction. Of course, this is easier to prove in the case of a Jack Spong or a Katherine Schori. It is more difficult to prove for the average Episcopal priest, who continues to employ traditional theological and liturgical language but not quite meaning what the Church has traditionally meant by such language. This is not surprising. We are, after all, talking about a denomination whose dominant theological approach is accurately described as experientialist-expressivist, to use George Lindbeck’s terminology. Experientialists can be notoriously difficult to pin down on theological matters. But clarity can usually be achieved by focusing on the nature of deity and the question of the salvific necessity of Jesus Christ. It was, after all, the refusal of the Diocese of Maryland back in 1991 to affirm Jesus as the way, the truth, and the life that generated the Baltimiore Declaration. 17 years later I think it is safe to say that Episcopalians are more confused and heterodox on the identity and work of Jesus Christ, not less.
You write: “The Church has always been a place in which theologians have taken risks and have been rewarded or punished for taking those risks.”
True … and your point is? What views in the Episcopal Church are censured today? Who gets punished? Are bishops and priests disciplined for publicly denying the deity or resurrection of Jesus Christ? Or to put it differently, whose views are marginalized today in the Episcopal Church? Opposition to the ordination of women to the priesthood has already been effectively eradicated in the U.S. I think it is safe to say that within ten years we will be able to say the same about the opposition to the blessing of same-sex unions. But perhaps you approve of these developments and regard their imposition upon the faithful as compatible with “orthodoxy.” Fair enough. What about moral issues like abortion? Is support of abortion-rights also orthodox? What counts as heterodox today in the Episcopal Church? What views effectively eliminate one from ordination?
Oh, by the way, I’m a great fan of N. T. Wright. I also believe that Rowan Williams is a thoughtful, erudite theologian. But I think his leadership skills are wanting and that he is largely responsible, by his actions and inaction, for forcing the global south bishops to assert themselves at GAFCON. Perhaps anyone in his position would have failed to avert GAFCON, but the leadership approach adopted by Williams virtually guaranteed it.
Glad you’ve made up your mind so clearly about 2 million Americans and their British counterparts. As usual, your rhetoric unmasks the trauma you obviously sustained in leaving TEC. I’m sorry for your bad experience. But, frankly, I and episcopalians around the country are not having that same experience.
It’s curious to me that you so vehemently despise the episcopal structures that the Communion has or is trying so hard to develop to handle this situation, yet the RC is constantly dealing with the same from schillebeeckx and his Dutch compatriots in their support and inclusion of women in priestly leadership. Any censure they’ve received has been slight, and as we saw a couple years ago, the pope still receives schillebeeckx in audience. Is Benedict “tolerating” heterodoxy”?
It’s funny that you point your finger at members of the Anglican Communion for being Experientialists when so many in your church (as I well know from teaching at an RC university) are so clearly the same! The state of affairs in both churches, as you know but will go to pains to deny, is so much more complex that you make it out to be. Seriously, you have professors scared to write about Mariology for fear of being accused of denying dogma, you have women PhD students wondering why they haven’t received a better argument for keeping them out of seminary and off the altar than “It’s just not an option to be discussed”, evolution is making its way into the RC academy more and more everyday thanks to fellows like de Chardin.
Alvin, let’s lay off the labels for a while and try to engage in charitable productive dialogue that recognizes the subtleties and nuances of each others’ position. We might actually get somewhere that way.
Fr. Dan has posted a full response to Al Kimel on his (Fr. Dan’s) blog. The entry can be accessed here: http://3rdmillennium.blogspot.com/2008/07/al-kimels-comments-on-my-recent-entries.html.
(not for publication)
Cynthia,
Your most recent post (…Mama) comes up blank on my screen. This has happened once before, with your Phillips Long post. Is this just me, or is there a glitch on the site?
Patrick