It seems Bishop Schofield and the Southern Cone's Venables made an utter fool out of me for praising hints of an irenic tone in his letter to our Presiding Bishop--his performance at St.Nicholas, Atwater is a parody of episcopal ministry. One would have hoped that the Episcopal Church could have taken more explicit steps to maintain its presence in its diocese; maybe something is in the works, but in a sense significant damage is already done.
I.
I have a hard time seeing any way in which Schofield's action could be justified. From the Separatists' point of view, the action might get any of a variety of readings:
(1) Schofield and Venables are just exercising their episcopal authority in purging fissiparous dissidents.
In that case, however, Separatist complaints about similar purges from Loyalist Episcopal bishops would be sheer hypocrisy. Many Separatists--including Schofield if memory serves me correctly--objected to Smith inhibiting one of the "Con6"--are they now castigating Schofield, as moral consistency would require? Is Schofield casting out Schofield? Moral consistency is not their strong point, perhaps--but why expect that if they have indeed carried out a teleological suspension of the ethical?
(2) You don't like what Schofield and Venables are doing? How does it feel now that the shoe is on the other foot, you apostate liberals?
This is simply a tu quoque: it's fallacious. This sort of argument could not establish that Schofield and Venables are in the right. If the Liberals are wrong to purge, the Wingers are wrong to purge just as well. If the Liberals are right, there is no point to saying "How does it feel?" inasmuch as Wingers on the receiving end would have been wrong to resent being purged.
(3) Ah--but we are permitted to do whatever we wish with the heathen, apostate Liberals. Or at least, because we are holy and they are not, we are permitted to purge them, but they are not permitted to purge us.
But that is an argument a Christian should never make about anybody. It's not just hypocritical, but outright pagan, inasmuch as it implies an outright rejection of the Golden Rule and the Great Commandment, i.e. the essential moral response that marks Christians as such.
Although I do not mean to attribute any of (1)-(3) to Schofield, Venables, or their minions, I do not see what other seeds of justification are available. On the other hand, maybe justification is not the main issue.
II.
What I mean is: obviously Schofield et al. are not acting within the scope of what they can manage to justify. Rather, they are taking advantage of the type of power they have to do what they can manage, even if in the long term it will turn out that they are prevented from going through with it all--whether their use of that power is justified or not.
Their situation does not parallel that of regular bishops like Bishop Smith, as Schofield is now no longer a regular bishop of anything. He is experimenting, trying to improvise--with people as his raw material. He is doing what has not been done before, and nobody has any clear and cogent idea what he is doing or even why it is being done. In particular, the kind of ecclesiology he needs to render his action intelligible, dubious and marginal even if it has Williams' firm support, does not seem to be the kind of ecclesiology he has in mind.
But a Separatist might say "C'mon! What difference does it really make if we step outside of canonical bounds and good order, temporarily?"
I think it makes a great deal of difference. Consider that the congregation of St. Nicholas, through Schofield's action, has become sacred. That is:
a) Schofield et al are being permitted to do whatever they wish without being held accountable,
and
b) there is no ordered and regular deliberation, no canonical procedure governing what happens to them.
They are now in a kind of limbo. They have been made to exist in a space where anything is possible, insofar as they are parishoners, to be sure--but recall that communion is a matter of being, of life, and not tacked on as an additional extra. They have been made the exceptions on the receiving end of an exercise of extralegal sovereign authority, a kind of self-constituting act by Schofield. That is, by acting just as a genuine, regular bishop may, he might constitute his power as genuinely and regularly episcopal. His word, his whim, his innermost petulant passions have the real force of law, and a machinery--a bureaucracy--is set in place, ready to serve as an instrument for the successful projection of those whims and tantrums into reality. And Schofield's proto-sovereign tantrums were on display--garishly, even obscenely--before the congregation of St. Nicholas. And a bureaucrat, a certain so-called "Rev. Canon" Bill Gandenberger, was ready to hand as an instument to render the tantrum efficacious.
If you feel uneasy, even nauseated, at Schofield and Venables, you should. I cannot think of any surer confirmation of the thesis that the Anglican Communion's troubles are biopolitical in nature. Yes, pathetic arguments, all-too-late disavowals and rhetorical hyperbole are mustered as a front by Separatists, but in fact we are living through the gradual dissolution of our church community, a dissolution made flesh in San Joaquin recently, a dissolution St. Nicholas is resisting tooth and nail--and rightly so.
For the new community established by Schofield's means is constituted by establishing the structure of the camp. These nodes--the homo sacer, the exception, sovereign power, the space where anything is possible--cannot but establish an instance of the camp. Not just a kind of state of nature, but rather a kind of normalization of certain aspects of the state of nature, or better: a new communion of provinces is envisaged with relief, pride, and joy where these aspects are considered normal. Where community is established through such means beyond canon and law, beyond ethical rationality and accountability, it cannot help but instantiate the camp as its type.
That this instantiation is actually anticipated in Fort Worth, in Pittsburgh, and elsewhere shows a firm misunderstanding of ourselves as church; under Williams, the Communion as a whole may head in this direction. Given a liberal polity, as in the US, or a left-leaning social environment, as in the UK, such "normalized camp life" might seem innocuous--TEC and the CoE can't exactly bring on the Inquisition.
But the situation is different in Nigeria, in regions where liberal norms and bills of rights have not taken hold. There, the AC's slide into camp life is directly more sinister--and that is reason enough to resist it as the evil it is.
Consider again even the US, Canada & the UK--in these liberalized regions the slide to camp life can be seen in spheres of activity "outside" the church: in medicine, politics, economics, the military, etc.--especially in our post-9/11 era. The fact it is visible in the church too shows a new kind of christendom, a new constantinian settlement, a new variety of fornication is emerging in the church. The fact it seems so innocuous as it operates merely in the church should not leave us blind to its contribution to a much larger enervating trend. Let us have no traffic with this kind of power.
Williams' Advent Letter
The bottom line on Williams' Advent Letter? It's good enough to work with, and better than might have been hoped. Its worst parts have more to do with--it seems to me--Williams' personal idiosyncracies.
On the positive side, as TEC already holds to the Quadrilateral and to the supremacy of Scripture, much of Williams' section 2 should be read as a friendly attempt to shift our debates and disagreements to ground where the topic is not so much homosexuality as hermeneutics. Doesn't his attempt to move the debate along deserve our firm support? And doesn't it bode bode well for TEC in the long term?
Williams continues to hold that the word of Lambeth '98 1.10 expresses the mind of the Communion--surely a tendentious stand. He may seem obtuse in his tenacity--but wait. Lambeth resolutions can flip around with the wind; they are established on the basis of mere aggregates of transient opinion. And Lambeth '98 demonstrated how supermajorities can be assembled on the spot via combinations of manipulative rhetoric and lobbying. Thus, the incendiary parts of Lambeth '98 can be contradicted with some effort in good time.
There is precious little of substance to Williams' stand other than obstinate adherence to the latest ecclesial fashion--decided merely by majority rule--and his stand appears steadfast only because the occasions for contradiction pass at ten year intervals. We tend not to be that patient--left or right. Williams' tenacious hold to Lambeth could eventually cut TEC's way, and his emphasis on Scriptural authority can be taken as a positive development.
It is more difficult to credit his mention of Bishop Robinson again by name:
Thus it is not surprising if some have concluded that the official organs of The Episcopal Church, in confirming the election of Gene Robinson and in giving what many regard as implicit sanction to same-sex blessings of a public nature have put in question the degree to which it can be recognised as belonging to the same family by deciding to act against the strong, reiterated and consistent advice of the Instruments of Communion.
Robinson is not addressed as bishop, but as an individual with a scandalous sexuality. He is being treated here as the exception, subjected to the unique authority of the Archbishop as a means to securing the Communion's unity: a sacred man or, in another conceptual framework, a scapegoat. Williams should know better, judging from his writing on Girard. I have no idea if he is familiar with Taubes, Schmitt, and Agamben as well; even so that would not help his case. He has done this sort of thing to Robinson before and shows no sign of letting up--a merely personal tick?
Moreover, he picks a gratuitous fight with TEC by questioning the legitimacy of its episcopate:
It raises a major ecclesiological issue, not about some sort of autocratic episcopal privilege but about the understanding in The Episcopal Church of the distinctive charism of bishops as an order and their responsibility for sustaining doctrinal standards. Once again, there seems to be a gap between what some in The Episcopal Church understand about the ministry of bishops and what is held elsewhere in the Communion, and this needs to be addressed.
"Once again"--ordaining Robinson seems to be the other case. This is what theological
postliberalism can look like--Williams' ignorance of the very type of power politics in which he
himself is engaged. A grotesque ignorance of TEC's history: our relatively unique episcopate is no accident, and his special pleading with the circumscription "not about some sort of autocratic episcopal privilege" seems willfully perverse. As if episcopal autocracy were the only available
disjunct driving the formation of our polity! The Enlightenment, and the notion of a republic ordered with intrinsic checks, did not arise in a vacuum but out of the failure of premodernity to--among other things--regulate its indulgence in the rituals of power politics. TEC's polity arose in the recognition--the self-recognition--of a potentiality for disordered desire at the level of social structures. It is ironic Williams' very questioning of this polity shows the need for it.
Going over the Archbishop's latest missives, I found myself reading not with the expectation of cogency, but with respect for--even fear of--his power. Who reads or listens to the Archbishop with the expectation of finding a convincing line of reasoning or a persuasive articulation of some as-yet largley unseen picture?
What is important is rather that he wields an enormous amount of power with regard to both left and right, and whichever way the wind happens to tumble him about, he will end up having enormous influence. Whole provinces stand or fall, form or are finished off on the basis of what he says and does not say--and it seems his style of communicating has only intensified the spectacle of Communion-wide focus on his every nod and arched eyebrow.
What does the habit of such a focus do to a community? It is not as if there are principles to be found underneath the words that guide what he asserts with some formal argumentative force. The power of this office is wielded without a set of discernible reasons, but with great reliance on the relevance of the person of Williams and his contingencies, as well as a rhetoric of persuasion based on fear.
Still, this letter is good enough to work with. We would probably do well not addressing Williams' personal idiosyncracies head-on; they are not that important, and we need less wrangling. We already know, for instance, he does not view--even in this letter-- TEC or any province as a real church, he treats Robinson as a scapegoat, and he questions the legitimacy of our episcopate. While it would be tempting to take these views on, we would probably do better ignoring these oddities.
On the positive side, as TEC already holds to the Quadrilateral and to the supremacy of Scripture, much of Williams' section 2 should be read as a friendly attempt to shift our debates and disagreements to ground where the topic is not so much homosexuality as hermeneutics. Doesn't his attempt to move the debate along deserve our firm support? And doesn't it bode bode well for TEC in the long term?
Williams continues to hold that the word of Lambeth '98 1.10 expresses the mind of the Communion--surely a tendentious stand. He may seem obtuse in his tenacity--but wait. Lambeth resolutions can flip around with the wind; they are established on the basis of mere aggregates of transient opinion. And Lambeth '98 demonstrated how supermajorities can be assembled on the spot via combinations of manipulative rhetoric and lobbying. Thus, the incendiary parts of Lambeth '98 can be contradicted with some effort in good time.
There is precious little of substance to Williams' stand other than obstinate adherence to the latest ecclesial fashion--decided merely by majority rule--and his stand appears steadfast only because the occasions for contradiction pass at ten year intervals. We tend not to be that patient--left or right. Williams' tenacious hold to Lambeth could eventually cut TEC's way, and his emphasis on Scriptural authority can be taken as a positive development.
It is more difficult to credit his mention of Bishop Robinson again by name:
Thus it is not surprising if some have concluded that the official organs of The Episcopal Church, in confirming the election of Gene Robinson and in giving what many regard as implicit sanction to same-sex blessings of a public nature have put in question the degree to which it can be recognised as belonging to the same family by deciding to act against the strong, reiterated and consistent advice of the Instruments of Communion.
Robinson is not addressed as bishop, but as an individual with a scandalous sexuality. He is being treated here as the exception, subjected to the unique authority of the Archbishop as a means to securing the Communion's unity: a sacred man or, in another conceptual framework, a scapegoat. Williams should know better, judging from his writing on Girard. I have no idea if he is familiar with Taubes, Schmitt, and Agamben as well; even so that would not help his case. He has done this sort of thing to Robinson before and shows no sign of letting up--a merely personal tick?
Moreover, he picks a gratuitous fight with TEC by questioning the legitimacy of its episcopate:
It raises a major ecclesiological issue, not about some sort of autocratic episcopal privilege but about the understanding in The Episcopal Church of the distinctive charism of bishops as an order and their responsibility for sustaining doctrinal standards. Once again, there seems to be a gap between what some in The Episcopal Church understand about the ministry of bishops and what is held elsewhere in the Communion, and this needs to be addressed.
"Once again"--ordaining Robinson seems to be the other case. This is what theological
postliberalism can look like--Williams' ignorance of the very type of power politics in which he
himself is engaged. A grotesque ignorance of TEC's history: our relatively unique episcopate is no accident, and his special pleading with the circumscription "not about some sort of autocratic episcopal privilege" seems willfully perverse. As if episcopal autocracy were the only available
disjunct driving the formation of our polity! The Enlightenment, and the notion of a republic ordered with intrinsic checks, did not arise in a vacuum but out of the failure of premodernity to--among other things--regulate its indulgence in the rituals of power politics. TEC's polity arose in the recognition--the self-recognition--of a potentiality for disordered desire at the level of social structures. It is ironic Williams' very questioning of this polity shows the need for it.
Going over the Archbishop's latest missives, I found myself reading not with the expectation of cogency, but with respect for--even fear of--his power. Who reads or listens to the Archbishop with the expectation of finding a convincing line of reasoning or a persuasive articulation of some as-yet largley unseen picture?
What is important is rather that he wields an enormous amount of power with regard to both left and right, and whichever way the wind happens to tumble him about, he will end up having enormous influence. Whole provinces stand or fall, form or are finished off on the basis of what he says and does not say--and it seems his style of communicating has only intensified the spectacle of Communion-wide focus on his every nod and arched eyebrow.
What does the habit of such a focus do to a community? It is not as if there are principles to be found underneath the words that guide what he asserts with some formal argumentative force. The power of this office is wielded without a set of discernible reasons, but with great reliance on the relevance of the person of Williams and his contingencies, as well as a rhetoric of persuasion based on fear.
Still, this letter is good enough to work with. We would probably do well not addressing Williams' personal idiosyncracies head-on; they are not that important, and we need less wrangling. We already know, for instance, he does not view--even in this letter-- TEC or any province as a real church, he treats Robinson as a scapegoat, and he questions the legitimacy of our episcopate. While it would be tempting to take these views on, we would probably do better ignoring these oddities.
Bishop Schofield's Letter in Reply
Bishop Schofield's irenic tone surprised me, and I found myself wondering whether he, rather than Duncan or Iker, should have been the leader of the Episcopalian separatist movement. He seems like more of a bishop than the others in this letter, exercising what he takes to be the only permissible measure of oversight remaining to him as pastor to the diocese.
Given that I disagree with his position openly and vehemently, I bear a burden of showing where such a leader could have gone wrong. Maybe the place to start is with this bit of hyperbole:
It is true that the House of Bishops has ignored my views for nearly twenty years. [sc. almost since 1987]
That is a very strong claim: his views have been ignored, not discussed or debated or engaged with but simply ignored as if they did not exist. No doubt he feels this way, probably with many others in his diocese, but his claim is nevertheless transparently false. One would think the long historical appendix of To Set our Hope on Christ would be enough to show his claim is in fact an exaggeration.
And then more hyperbole:
The decision to be made by our Annual Convention this Saturday is the culmination of The Episcopal Church’s failure to heed the repeated calls for repentance issued by the Primates of the Anglican Communion and for the cessation of false teaching and sacramental actions explicitly contrary to Scripture.
The teaching of Lambeth 1.10 cannot claim for itself the kind of authority he assumes it carries; moreover, even granting the Primates the kind of authority he presumes they have, he seems to pretend that a manifestly contentious issue--whether the Episcopal Church satisfied the Primates and what it was the Primates wanted exactly--is one around which there is a consensus. In fact, a consensus has not emerged; he seems to have "jumped the gun" in running this particular race.
In fact, by short-circuiting the primates' process of discernment, through which a consensus might have emerged, the good bishop is acting not on the authority he claims, namely as part of
the
Catholic Faith and Order...shared by the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Churches and by some 60 million faithful Anglicans worldwide
but as a mere faction of the Anglican Communion. He acts not even with the full authority of that fragment of the catholic church which the Communion might be said to represent in its councils, but by something less: hence the claim he is isolated.
And more hyperbole:
For years, I have tried in vain to obtain adequate Primatial oversight to protect the Diocese from an apostate institution that has minted a new religion irreconcilable with the Anglican faith.
In fact, by pursuing separation he has cut off the very process of alternate oversight he claimed to have sincerely pursued without success. Moreover the judgement he levels with claims of apostasy and formation of a new religion are merely propaganda issued from his peculiar faction; they are antithetical to the words of the ABC and were not issued by the Primates. That is an odd episcopal practice, no? To drag the entire diocese out of the church catholic and into a mere faction? For what? An oddly individualistic reading of his ministry of oversight?
My Ordination vows require me to be a faithful steward of God’s holy Word and to defend His truth and "be ready, with all faithful diligence, to banish and drive away from the Church all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to God’s Word; and to use both public and private monitions and exhortations..." I can do no other.
Rather than act fully within the authority of the councils of the Communion--which would require a certain patience--he chooses to act as a little Luther, doing his own special new thing, out on his own, joining the latest faction. Is it too much to claim the root of this wide-ranging hyperbole in the leaders of the Episcopalian separatist faction is just this odd self-conception, this conviction "I really am just like Luther! I really am!"? We can find the same sort of hyperbole in Iker and Duncan and the same high-profile reference to Luther in Duncan.
Taking a further step: the root of the Luther-self image might be a certain cultivation of inwardness, a certain inward tending passion a la Kierkegaard. It's not that these bishops are really like monks capable of reformation, but that they bear in their ministry a certain tendency to teleological suspension of the ethical, i.e. a certain tendency to disregard the Anglican Communion's Sittlichkeit out of a passion regarded as faith. That makes them interesting, to be sure, and a bit dangerous from the point of view of the negotiator: how can they be moved from their position? These bishops may have already made their move of "infinite resignation"--who knows?
Given that I disagree with his position openly and vehemently, I bear a burden of showing where such a leader could have gone wrong. Maybe the place to start is with this bit of hyperbole:
It is true that the House of Bishops has ignored my views for nearly twenty years. [sc. almost since 1987]
That is a very strong claim: his views have been ignored, not discussed or debated or engaged with but simply ignored as if they did not exist. No doubt he feels this way, probably with many others in his diocese, but his claim is nevertheless transparently false. One would think the long historical appendix of To Set our Hope on Christ would be enough to show his claim is in fact an exaggeration.
And then more hyperbole:
The decision to be made by our Annual Convention this Saturday is the culmination of The Episcopal Church’s failure to heed the repeated calls for repentance issued by the Primates of the Anglican Communion and for the cessation of false teaching and sacramental actions explicitly contrary to Scripture.
The teaching of Lambeth 1.10 cannot claim for itself the kind of authority he assumes it carries; moreover, even granting the Primates the kind of authority he presumes they have, he seems to pretend that a manifestly contentious issue--whether the Episcopal Church satisfied the Primates and what it was the Primates wanted exactly--is one around which there is a consensus. In fact, a consensus has not emerged; he seems to have "jumped the gun" in running this particular race.
In fact, by short-circuiting the primates' process of discernment, through which a consensus might have emerged, the good bishop is acting not on the authority he claims, namely as part of
the
Catholic Faith and Order...shared by the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Churches and by some 60 million faithful Anglicans worldwide
but as a mere faction of the Anglican Communion. He acts not even with the full authority of that fragment of the catholic church which the Communion might be said to represent in its councils, but by something less: hence the claim he is isolated.
And more hyperbole:
For years, I have tried in vain to obtain adequate Primatial oversight to protect the Diocese from an apostate institution that has minted a new religion irreconcilable with the Anglican faith.
In fact, by pursuing separation he has cut off the very process of alternate oversight he claimed to have sincerely pursued without success. Moreover the judgement he levels with claims of apostasy and formation of a new religion are merely propaganda issued from his peculiar faction; they are antithetical to the words of the ABC and were not issued by the Primates. That is an odd episcopal practice, no? To drag the entire diocese out of the church catholic and into a mere faction? For what? An oddly individualistic reading of his ministry of oversight?
My Ordination vows require me to be a faithful steward of God’s holy Word and to defend His truth and "be ready, with all faithful diligence, to banish and drive away from the Church all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to God’s Word; and to use both public and private monitions and exhortations..." I can do no other.
Rather than act fully within the authority of the councils of the Communion--which would require a certain patience--he chooses to act as a little Luther, doing his own special new thing, out on his own, joining the latest faction. Is it too much to claim the root of this wide-ranging hyperbole in the leaders of the Episcopalian separatist faction is just this odd self-conception, this conviction "I really am just like Luther! I really am!"? We can find the same sort of hyperbole in Iker and Duncan and the same high-profile reference to Luther in Duncan.
Taking a further step: the root of the Luther-self image might be a certain cultivation of inwardness, a certain inward tending passion a la Kierkegaard. It's not that these bishops are really like monks capable of reformation, but that they bear in their ministry a certain tendency to teleological suspension of the ethical, i.e. a certain tendency to disregard the Anglican Communion's Sittlichkeit out of a passion regarded as faith. That makes them interesting, to be sure, and a bit dangerous from the point of view of the negotiator: how can they be moved from their position? These bishops may have already made their move of "infinite resignation"--who knows?
Hypotheses on the Schism
In a sense, the slow-motion train wreck of Fort Worth et al. finally separating from the Episcopal Church is to be welcomed. After the ruins are restored to some new order, Separatists and Loyalists may be able to settle back into more worthy tasks befitting Christians than bickering bitterly and ceaselessly among themselves; myriad backburner issues may at last get the attention they deserve but have of late been denied. Even so, it seems likely to me that this schism, even when "complete" a year or so down the road, will offer neither closure nor catharsis. These are my fears then: likely so far as I can tell, but perhaps avoidable somehow:
I. The bickering will not end.
Why?
[a]Too many conservatives sympathetic to the separatists' cause will remain in TEC, and will prove too tempting to the separated. The newly separated will then begin to appeal to them through new interest groups: not the AAC or ACN or CAPA or the current whatnot, but new XYZ groups--a fresh serving of schismatic alphabet soup.
[b] The separated have their own internal conflicts, and will not have achieved the requisite unity among themselves at the time of separation a year or so from now. Having gained some measure of unity through opposition to TEC, they will return again and again to this theme--and that will require ongoing bitter rebuke in an endless stream of detritus flowing nonstop through the internet cloaca.
[c] The separated have bigger plans then mere unity among themselves; they want to be in the AC as a province, and to kick TEC out of the AC as a province. They have not given up these plans--separation is merely stage one. Performing the Provincial Two-Step will take years--even decades--of well-funded, high-decibel bitterness at an international level. The funding and the shouting will be there in good supply.
It takes two to bicker. Is there a creative way for Loyalists to unilaterally stop bickering? What would that look like on the national, diocesan, and congregational levels? What should it look like?
II. TEC will continue to slowy contract in the U.S.
Sure, TEC could turn that around, as we have the Message and a target audience very well-suited to hear the way we have received the Gospel. But that is not where we are putting our energy. That is not where the funds are going. TEC has been suckered into taking "the Global South's" Provincial Two-Step seriously enough to waste an enormous amount of time and energy on it. That is--in my opinion--a big mistake. Why?
[a] When there's a shouting match in front of the store, people will be disinclined to come in. They won't have the time or energy to figure it all out and to see what is going on--they'll move away from the margins to somewhere else: not in all cases, but in enough cases that we should be worried.
[b]When there is a shouting match, the message doesn't come through. Our target audience won't be able to hear it clearly. For example, think of how most younger Americans--many of which see nothing wrong with homosexual couples--see TEC in the midst of this mess. It is not clear where we stand when our crisis management in the HOB tends toward carefully parsed compromise that will inevitable seem to those on the outside to be self-serving equivocation. Sure, it really is not equivocation, but it sure is self-serving nonetheless.
[c] The fact there is still--after four years--a shouting match that is getting worse and worse serves the Separatist cause. It is in their interest to see TEC continue to be distracted from Mission and to continue to contract while being preoccupied with a never-ending "crisis" increasingly manufactured by the separatists themselves.
As a recent AC report made clear, we have at least a dozen sympathetic friends in the AC. Can they handle the issue of whether we get kicked out and whether Separatists everywhere should be rewarded for their schismatic efforts with a shiny new province? Can we form an intentional community in the AC to balance the continual poisonous, negative hype from the GS with something more constructive and postive--and less isolating for the Episcopal Church?
III. The Instruments of Union will Continue to Centralize their Power
Flip our tedious Anglo-drama on its head and ask cui bono? You might think first of Duncan and Minns, Nigeria and upper-class, right-wing Episco-america. In a sense, sure--but they might well be paying a high moral price through the means employed. Who else?
The instruments of union, of course. The whole Windsor Process as it has actually played out, the entire Covenant solution, the Communion-wide response to this crisis tends toward a resolution in centralized institutional power. You might say: both sides are being played against each other to the end of desacralized administration. To a double or triple irony: (1) the apparatus is already manifestly dysfunctional; and we're going to trust it with this?; (2) neither side actually intends this outcome primarily and no indiviual "bigplayer" seems to want it as an end in itself; (3) some of the right-wing prime movers in this mess would despise the "more bureaucracy" answer in any other context--with excellent, well-articulated reason too (see Tullock, Buchanan, Hayek et al).
But this type of centralization in the service of Power serves no merely human person, I'd guess. Here the church is caught up in culture to its detriment--the same "reason of state" interest can be viewed operating with great success in secular society, and especially in our own post-9/11 United States. This secular movement is fueled by discourse around sex and the practice of confession--it's as if we are trapped in a half-conscious, neurotic repetition in spite of ourselves: caught in a frantic St. Vitus' dance. But from the outside, from the outside: view it from the outside.
Ultimately, it serves nothing. Must we continue to partake in it?
I. The bickering will not end.
Why?
[a]Too many conservatives sympathetic to the separatists' cause will remain in TEC, and will prove too tempting to the separated. The newly separated will then begin to appeal to them through new interest groups: not the AAC or ACN or CAPA or the current whatnot, but new XYZ groups--a fresh serving of schismatic alphabet soup.
[b] The separated have their own internal conflicts, and will not have achieved the requisite unity among themselves at the time of separation a year or so from now. Having gained some measure of unity through opposition to TEC, they will return again and again to this theme--and that will require ongoing bitter rebuke in an endless stream of detritus flowing nonstop through the internet cloaca.
[c] The separated have bigger plans then mere unity among themselves; they want to be in the AC as a province, and to kick TEC out of the AC as a province. They have not given up these plans--separation is merely stage one. Performing the Provincial Two-Step will take years--even decades--of well-funded, high-decibel bitterness at an international level. The funding and the shouting will be there in good supply.
It takes two to bicker. Is there a creative way for Loyalists to unilaterally stop bickering? What would that look like on the national, diocesan, and congregational levels? What should it look like?
II. TEC will continue to slowy contract in the U.S.
Sure, TEC could turn that around, as we have the Message and a target audience very well-suited to hear the way we have received the Gospel. But that is not where we are putting our energy. That is not where the funds are going. TEC has been suckered into taking "the Global South's" Provincial Two-Step seriously enough to waste an enormous amount of time and energy on it. That is--in my opinion--a big mistake. Why?
[a] When there's a shouting match in front of the store, people will be disinclined to come in. They won't have the time or energy to figure it all out and to see what is going on--they'll move away from the margins to somewhere else: not in all cases, but in enough cases that we should be worried.
[b]When there is a shouting match, the message doesn't come through. Our target audience won't be able to hear it clearly. For example, think of how most younger Americans--many of which see nothing wrong with homosexual couples--see TEC in the midst of this mess. It is not clear where we stand when our crisis management in the HOB tends toward carefully parsed compromise that will inevitable seem to those on the outside to be self-serving equivocation. Sure, it really is not equivocation, but it sure is self-serving nonetheless.
[c] The fact there is still--after four years--a shouting match that is getting worse and worse serves the Separatist cause. It is in their interest to see TEC continue to be distracted from Mission and to continue to contract while being preoccupied with a never-ending "crisis" increasingly manufactured by the separatists themselves.
As a recent AC report made clear, we have at least a dozen sympathetic friends in the AC. Can they handle the issue of whether we get kicked out and whether Separatists everywhere should be rewarded for their schismatic efforts with a shiny new province? Can we form an intentional community in the AC to balance the continual poisonous, negative hype from the GS with something more constructive and postive--and less isolating for the Episcopal Church?
III. The Instruments of Union will Continue to Centralize their Power
Flip our tedious Anglo-drama on its head and ask cui bono? You might think first of Duncan and Minns, Nigeria and upper-class, right-wing Episco-america. In a sense, sure--but they might well be paying a high moral price through the means employed. Who else?
The instruments of union, of course. The whole Windsor Process as it has actually played out, the entire Covenant solution, the Communion-wide response to this crisis tends toward a resolution in centralized institutional power. You might say: both sides are being played against each other to the end of desacralized administration. To a double or triple irony: (1) the apparatus is already manifestly dysfunctional; and we're going to trust it with this?; (2) neither side actually intends this outcome primarily and no indiviual "bigplayer" seems to want it as an end in itself; (3) some of the right-wing prime movers in this mess would despise the "more bureaucracy" answer in any other context--with excellent, well-articulated reason too (see Tullock, Buchanan, Hayek et al).
But this type of centralization in the service of Power serves no merely human person, I'd guess. Here the church is caught up in culture to its detriment--the same "reason of state" interest can be viewed operating with great success in secular society, and especially in our own post-9/11 United States. This secular movement is fueled by discourse around sex and the practice of confession--it's as if we are trapped in a half-conscious, neurotic repetition in spite of ourselves: caught in a frantic St. Vitus' dance. But from the outside, from the outside: view it from the outside.
Ultimately, it serves nothing. Must we continue to partake in it?
Go Ahead: Five Short Questions for Critics of the ABC
First, is the Iraq war a just war? Explain your answer briefly.
Second, if the Iraq war is not a just war, should participants in its violent acts be barred from the Eucharist under the rubric banning notorious sinners from the Altar? Note, the second question could be answered Yes even if the first were answered Yes.
We might ask third, even if the Iraq war were just, should participants in its violent acts be barred from the Eucharist under the relevant rubric?
Fourth, if participants in the violent acts of the Iraq war were to be barred from the Eucharist, what impact should that have on our preaching and liturgy?
At the least, one might say preachers--Right wing or Left wing--should already be Crystal Clear about their answers, especially in front of their congregations. How many have spoken in the open to such grave issues? Surely there is a great need whatever the preacher's view may happen to be, as even my narrow focus on liturgy might show.
More: it might well be that congregations arrive at troubling wide notions of "participant", or decide that a special Mass for participants is required in the interests of reconciliation. But that leads to a final question:
If a Mass were carried out for participants, what kind of repentance would be called for?
Second, if the Iraq war is not a just war, should participants in its violent acts be barred from the Eucharist under the rubric banning notorious sinners from the Altar? Note, the second question could be answered Yes even if the first were answered Yes.
We might ask third, even if the Iraq war were just, should participants in its violent acts be barred from the Eucharist under the relevant rubric?
Fourth, if participants in the violent acts of the Iraq war were to be barred from the Eucharist, what impact should that have on our preaching and liturgy?
At the least, one might say preachers--Right wing or Left wing--should already be Crystal Clear about their answers, especially in front of their congregations. How many have spoken in the open to such grave issues? Surely there is a great need whatever the preacher's view may happen to be, as even my narrow focus on liturgy might show.
More: it might well be that congregations arrive at troubling wide notions of "participant", or decide that a special Mass for participants is required in the interests of reconciliation. But that leads to a final question:
If a Mass were carried out for participants, what kind of repentance would be called for?
Homo Sacer
This is not the U.S.--it's Canada this time: Vancouver. But this type of thing is extremely important, as it could easily have happened here, and has come to pass plenty of times in our recent past, so that it is slowly, inexorably becoming a fact of life, normal.
Here are the particulars: a Polish guy emigrating to Canada without speaking any English lands in the airport where he planned to meet his mother strightaway but gets stuck for 10 hours; he panics, throws a small table at the glass partition where he is stuck, but attracts the police; he gets tazed twice and dies on the spot. Ah--but the whole thing is being filmed by a nearby civilian, he hands over the tape to the cops, who at first refuse to return it. But now the thing is public; here is the BBC site.
Hideous, you'll agree.
It struck me as a poignant confirmation of Agamben's homo sacer thesis--from 1998 (i.e. years before 9/11). The thesis? The concentration camp, a space where extralegal atrocity is readily accessible and ready to hand, is potentially anywhere in the fabric of everyday life, where before the camp was localized behind barbed wire and guard towers.
I am not sure the police in the case will be prosecuted; if they are, that would show Canada tending to eliminate that kind of space from the fabric of its normal life. Good. Even so, the fact a decision has to be made about the case post factum, and in this case seems to be made without a clear conception of what is at stake, shows how dangerous our situation is: in the name of state interest, we are backing ourselves into an unprecedented position of subjection to political power. Sure, it might "make better sense" in the wake of 9/11, but can we back away from such subjection at any time after 9/11 when already such subjection is becoming routine?
"So what?" you say: "All that crap doesn't concern me. Why should I give a damn? I'm busy."
(1)Well now, get your Girard on; Agamben's sort of tendency confirms portions of Girard's thinking about the scapegoat, the Cross and satan. Looking for something to preach on Veterans' Day, or Independence day, or during Advent? Do you really want to "hold the Bible in one hand and the newspaper in the other"?
(2)Get your Foucault on, from the first volume of his History of Sexuality where he discusses biopolitics; Agamben builds on Foucault. It seems to me advocates of GC2003 could only cherry-pick from Foucault for "support". There isn't any solace there for anyone thinking of homo- or heterosexuality as authentic aspects of one's genuine self, where the task of liberation theology should be to expunge irrational repression from ecclesial institutions, say.
From a Foucault-informed point of view, the social construction of homosexuality as a discrete concept is old news, and even beside the main point; rather, GC2003 and associated drama in the Anglican Communion are symptoms of an extension of state power similar to that in evidence when police get to taze an innocent foreigner to death. Liberation may be a good thing, but it is played out against a backdrop of subjection to and penetration by political power left entirely intact--and even strengthened--by the movement to liberate.
Where to go with Agamben, Girard, Foucault? At the very least, we might get an initial impression of something potentially very big and very bad emerging in the "life of the christianist West" which seems rather different from the other bad things we might have expected to emerge, and of whose final shape we can only as yet scarcely imagine: some new, satanic, iron form of human degradation eventually destined--as all things opposing the Kingdom--to accompany those already consigned to the dustbin of history. But what exactly will emerge in the near term? How will all this develop?
Here are the particulars: a Polish guy emigrating to Canada without speaking any English lands in the airport where he planned to meet his mother strightaway but gets stuck for 10 hours; he panics, throws a small table at the glass partition where he is stuck, but attracts the police; he gets tazed twice and dies on the spot. Ah--but the whole thing is being filmed by a nearby civilian, he hands over the tape to the cops, who at first refuse to return it. But now the thing is public; here is the BBC site.
Hideous, you'll agree.
It struck me as a poignant confirmation of Agamben's homo sacer thesis--from 1998 (i.e. years before 9/11). The thesis? The concentration camp, a space where extralegal atrocity is readily accessible and ready to hand, is potentially anywhere in the fabric of everyday life, where before the camp was localized behind barbed wire and guard towers.
I am not sure the police in the case will be prosecuted; if they are, that would show Canada tending to eliminate that kind of space from the fabric of its normal life. Good. Even so, the fact a decision has to be made about the case post factum, and in this case seems to be made without a clear conception of what is at stake, shows how dangerous our situation is: in the name of state interest, we are backing ourselves into an unprecedented position of subjection to political power. Sure, it might "make better sense" in the wake of 9/11, but can we back away from such subjection at any time after 9/11 when already such subjection is becoming routine?
"So what?" you say: "All that crap doesn't concern me. Why should I give a damn? I'm busy."
(1)Well now, get your Girard on; Agamben's sort of tendency confirms portions of Girard's thinking about the scapegoat, the Cross and satan. Looking for something to preach on Veterans' Day, or Independence day, or during Advent? Do you really want to "hold the Bible in one hand and the newspaper in the other"?
(2)Get your Foucault on, from the first volume of his History of Sexuality where he discusses biopolitics; Agamben builds on Foucault. It seems to me advocates of GC2003 could only cherry-pick from Foucault for "support". There isn't any solace there for anyone thinking of homo- or heterosexuality as authentic aspects of one's genuine self, where the task of liberation theology should be to expunge irrational repression from ecclesial institutions, say.
From a Foucault-informed point of view, the social construction of homosexuality as a discrete concept is old news, and even beside the main point; rather, GC2003 and associated drama in the Anglican Communion are symptoms of an extension of state power similar to that in evidence when police get to taze an innocent foreigner to death. Liberation may be a good thing, but it is played out against a backdrop of subjection to and penetration by political power left entirely intact--and even strengthened--by the movement to liberate.
Where to go with Agamben, Girard, Foucault? At the very least, we might get an initial impression of something potentially very big and very bad emerging in the "life of the christianist West" which seems rather different from the other bad things we might have expected to emerge, and of whose final shape we can only as yet scarcely imagine: some new, satanic, iron form of human degradation eventually destined--as all things opposing the Kingdom--to accompany those already consigned to the dustbin of history. But what exactly will emerge in the near term? How will all this develop?
A Million Dead Iraqis?
Last I checked, it was probably only 650,000 or so; here is a rather under-reported study claiming the number is somewhat higher, around 1,200,000, or most likely between 733,158 and 1,446,063. One can stroll through some relevant data here and here; the older Lancet study is here. If the more recent report is accurate, the dead would exceed those from the Rwandan genocide.
At some point we ought to be concerned--perhaps even a little more concerned than it seems we already are.
Is there a number at which one's potentiality for receiving Communion would be affected?
At some point we ought to be concerned--perhaps even a little more concerned than it seems we already are.
Is there a number at which one's potentiality for receiving Communion would be affected?
Social Justice and the Gospel
What part if any does social justice have in the Gospel?
Surely it is true
The gospel is the promise of right relationship with God by no doing of our own, is peace and joy and fullness in Jesus Christ crucified and raised from the dead, who is present to us and for us here and now in the Word proclaimed in the reading/preaching and received in, with, and under the bread and wine. Jesus Christ himself is the Good News!
That is, the good news is not just a bunch of words and movements--as a promise might be viewed made on its own--but an actual presence"here and now" of God in Christ through the Spirit, or "peace and joy and fullness in Jesus Christ". So we can say the real person of Jesus himself is the Gospel. I hope that much is not controversial.
But then, what follows? Can we--should we--say that social justice is distinct from the Gospel, an effect of it rather than an item contituting it? No.
This is true as well, I should think:
When what is good for the community is not also good for an entire organ thereof, what we have identified as good as such for the community then is also somehow sinful and certainly not the fullness of God's gospel and will.
That is, a dualism between the good of the church and social justice is false; at least this is how I read Christopher.
So, to pick on Derek a little, I think this is off the mark:
But our preaching and our teaching becomes disoriented if somehow the logical corollary becomes the focus and the central thesis from which it proceeds is obscured. The Church’s primary responsibility is the proclamation of the Good News of the Gospel, then the works of mercy that flow from this revelation. To preach the works alone, or to assume that the connection between the faith and the works is obvious and need not be said is to risk corruption of the Gospel with which we have been entrusted.
The primary responsibility of the church is not preaching and proclaiming alone, of course, but sacramental--the very existence of the church is bound up with the Eucharist and Baptism. Works do not merely flow from the sacraments of the church; they constitute them. Without works, there could not be any material signs of grace. This is implied too by the Offering which formally begins the Eucharist, as distinct from the Proclamation of the Word. It is the very works of the congregation, and through these works their very lives, that are sanctified and brought into the real presence of Christ--and the Father more importantly--through the Eucharist. Hence we can speak meaningfully of a sending at the end of the Eucharistic liturgy that has the real presence of Christ continue with us outside the building and in the secular world. Or what is much the same, the church continues to exist throughout the rest of the week. We should see the action of the Eucharist and the rest of our lives as a whole.
But injustice is inconsistent with the real presence of Christ. This is not a matter merely of our moral response to the Gospel. The kerygma/didache distinction is more rational than real;
worship without justice is worthless. Hence we pass the peace before beginning the Eucharist proper, and confess our sins, begging forgiveness. Surely if discerning the body--the presence of God--is a precondition of receiving the Body and Blood of our Savior, and this discernment requires repentance, we should beware of putting injustice out of mind. Receiving in faith--entering into the real presence--is impossible without repentance; presumption to the contrary is sin. Without desiring justice in the liturgy of the Eucharist, there is no actual Eucharist. It is strange then to separate them; it would seem better to see justice as partially constituting the reception of the Eucharist; call it "infused" or "imparted" justice: no matter.
For any sin is social injustice, and any righteousness social justice. In addition to any human or mortal sinned against, we are always in the presence of the Holy, Holy, Holy God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It has been a clear implication of the doctrine of the church from its earliest days that any sin is at least sin among at least four persons, and at least between the sinner and God. Or: sin always affects communion, our being with God in three persons. It is incoherent to see the quality of communion apart from Holy Communion, and thus to see justice as apart from the Gospel.
Surely it is true
The gospel is the promise of right relationship with God by no doing of our own, is peace and joy and fullness in Jesus Christ crucified and raised from the dead, who is present to us and for us here and now in the Word proclaimed in the reading/preaching and received in, with, and under the bread and wine. Jesus Christ himself is the Good News!
That is, the good news is not just a bunch of words and movements--as a promise might be viewed made on its own--but an actual presence"here and now" of God in Christ through the Spirit, or "peace and joy and fullness in Jesus Christ". So we can say the real person of Jesus himself is the Gospel. I hope that much is not controversial.
But then, what follows? Can we--should we--say that social justice is distinct from the Gospel, an effect of it rather than an item contituting it? No.
This is true as well, I should think:
When what is good for the community is not also good for an entire organ thereof, what we have identified as good as such for the community then is also somehow sinful and certainly not the fullness of God's gospel and will.
That is, a dualism between the good of the church and social justice is false; at least this is how I read Christopher.
So, to pick on Derek a little, I think this is off the mark:
But our preaching and our teaching becomes disoriented if somehow the logical corollary becomes the focus and the central thesis from which it proceeds is obscured. The Church’s primary responsibility is the proclamation of the Good News of the Gospel, then the works of mercy that flow from this revelation. To preach the works alone, or to assume that the connection between the faith and the works is obvious and need not be said is to risk corruption of the Gospel with which we have been entrusted.
The primary responsibility of the church is not preaching and proclaiming alone, of course, but sacramental--the very existence of the church is bound up with the Eucharist and Baptism. Works do not merely flow from the sacraments of the church; they constitute them. Without works, there could not be any material signs of grace. This is implied too by the Offering which formally begins the Eucharist, as distinct from the Proclamation of the Word. It is the very works of the congregation, and through these works their very lives, that are sanctified and brought into the real presence of Christ--and the Father more importantly--through the Eucharist. Hence we can speak meaningfully of a sending at the end of the Eucharistic liturgy that has the real presence of Christ continue with us outside the building and in the secular world. Or what is much the same, the church continues to exist throughout the rest of the week. We should see the action of the Eucharist and the rest of our lives as a whole.
But injustice is inconsistent with the real presence of Christ. This is not a matter merely of our moral response to the Gospel. The kerygma/didache distinction is more rational than real;
worship without justice is worthless. Hence we pass the peace before beginning the Eucharist proper, and confess our sins, begging forgiveness. Surely if discerning the body--the presence of God--is a precondition of receiving the Body and Blood of our Savior, and this discernment requires repentance, we should beware of putting injustice out of mind. Receiving in faith--entering into the real presence--is impossible without repentance; presumption to the contrary is sin. Without desiring justice in the liturgy of the Eucharist, there is no actual Eucharist. It is strange then to separate them; it would seem better to see justice as partially constituting the reception of the Eucharist; call it "infused" or "imparted" justice: no matter.
For any sin is social injustice, and any righteousness social justice. In addition to any human or mortal sinned against, we are always in the presence of the Holy, Holy, Holy God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It has been a clear implication of the doctrine of the church from its earliest days that any sin is at least sin among at least four persons, and at least between the sinner and God. Or: sin always affects communion, our being with God in three persons. It is incoherent to see the quality of communion apart from Holy Communion, and thus to see justice as apart from the Gospel.
More From Williams
Does Archbishop Williams' clarification via Lambeth Palace do anything to remove the perception some have that he is holding the Communion up to the fire of a very strange doctrine?
No; the key point he made earlier is left intact here: the diocese is the basic unit of the church, and the province is a convenience of great practical significance, but no necessity. In effect, the clarification underlines his key point by indicating it was not an unintended accident that came out in the letter to Howe, but is instead a settled view held with conviction.
Note this strong language from the clarification; it claims the original letter voiced
a response reiterating [a]a basic presupposition of [b]what the Archbishop believes to be [c]the theology of the Church.
Well, we are right to suspect the letter to Howe draws on his ecclesiology (and his ecclesiology is "the" ecclesiology ?!?); [c] confirms this. Moreover, the letter is based on basic presuppositions (from [a]) of his ecclesiology. Basicality is a slippery notion, but in this context it is not encouraging. That is, one might have thought that Williams might be open to the plausibility of other, contrary views more in the line of normative Anglican tradition; apparently he is not. His judgement here is a settled matter, a matter of basic premises from which one would start.
But note too that this is acknowledged (in [b]) to be the Archbishop's own opinion, his personal doxa, a private judgement. It is not said to be the opinion of the CoE, the AC, the ACC, the Primates, the Church universal, or any formal, communal eccesial entity. That is in tension, to say the least, with other claims made in the clarification: more on that later.
Recall when he once showed great reluctance to act while taking private and controversial opinions as premises--namely those permissive toward same sex unions. Then he claimed that duty to his office precluded it--as a point of catholic churchmanship even. He distinguished between the offices of a prophet and bishop. Those were the days! Days gone by. Apparently those fine distinctions hold no longer, or else they are being applied with curious--even aggressive--selectivity, as he now is ready to act on a private understanding of the church manifestly contrary to what had been the principal cluster of mainstream Anglican views.
His selectivity with principle is aggressive because in these two statements he adds considerable momentum to the separatist movement by validating their basic strategy. He implies the national church is a convenient, but expendable, abstraction whose dioceses--identity intact--can be reorganized into new provinces or new ecclesial entities as it pleases them and the rest of the Communion. If that isn't a green light to Fort Worth and others, what is?
Thus the clarification notes
The primary point was that – theologically and sacramentally speaking – a priest is related in the first place to his/her bishop directly, not through the structure of the national church; that structure serves the dioceses. The diocese is more than a ‘local branch’ of a national organisation.
There is little common ground here with the notion that dioceses are creatures of the provinces of which they are a part, unable to exist on their own apart from them, or in principle unable to secede with their identity intact. Satisfying "is a member of the Episcopal Church" is neat-o but accidental.
That may come as news to some deacons, priests and bishops, who might think they have some ground for allegiance to the national church over and above the diocese. No; it follows, there is no national church for Williams, except in a secondary and derivative sense.
Again, the clarification notes,
[d] The provincial structure is significant, not least for the administration of a uniform canon law and a range of practical functions; Dr Williams is not encouraging anyone to ignore this, [e] simply to understand the theological priorities which have been articulated in a number of ecumenical agreements, and [f] in the light of this not to increase the level of confusion and fragmentation in the church.
Part [d] reiterates Williams' key point with force. The significance of the province is merely instrumental; it is not a church in itself. It has administrative and practical functions that are important--and that is it. Period.
Thus, what might be meant by "fragmentation of the church" in [f]? On my reading of Williams, "church" there does not refer to "The Episcopal Church". There is no such church according to him. Its primary referent is the communion of dioceses, where communion of provinces is apparently taken merely to supervene on the relationship of the dioceses.
Finally, part [e] worries me. I have said a couple of times now that Williams' understanding of the church is not ours: not in the mainstream of normative Anglican tradition. It is private, I claimed, and suspect enough on that account alone. However, he seems to think it is not private. It is rather, he claims, the position on the nature of the church we have committed ourselves to apart from this controversy in ecumenical conversation. Is that right?
No; the key point he made earlier is left intact here: the diocese is the basic unit of the church, and the province is a convenience of great practical significance, but no necessity. In effect, the clarification underlines his key point by indicating it was not an unintended accident that came out in the letter to Howe, but is instead a settled view held with conviction.
Note this strong language from the clarification; it claims the original letter voiced
a response reiterating [a]a basic presupposition of [b]what the Archbishop believes to be [c]the theology of the Church.
Well, we are right to suspect the letter to Howe draws on his ecclesiology (and his ecclesiology is "the" ecclesiology ?!?); [c] confirms this. Moreover, the letter is based on basic presuppositions (from [a]) of his ecclesiology. Basicality is a slippery notion, but in this context it is not encouraging. That is, one might have thought that Williams might be open to the plausibility of other, contrary views more in the line of normative Anglican tradition; apparently he is not. His judgement here is a settled matter, a matter of basic premises from which one would start.
But note too that this is acknowledged (in [b]) to be the Archbishop's own opinion, his personal doxa, a private judgement. It is not said to be the opinion of the CoE, the AC, the ACC, the Primates, the Church universal, or any formal, communal eccesial entity. That is in tension, to say the least, with other claims made in the clarification: more on that later.
Recall when he once showed great reluctance to act while taking private and controversial opinions as premises--namely those permissive toward same sex unions. Then he claimed that duty to his office precluded it--as a point of catholic churchmanship even. He distinguished between the offices of a prophet and bishop. Those were the days! Days gone by. Apparently those fine distinctions hold no longer, or else they are being applied with curious--even aggressive--selectivity, as he now is ready to act on a private understanding of the church manifestly contrary to what had been the principal cluster of mainstream Anglican views.
His selectivity with principle is aggressive because in these two statements he adds considerable momentum to the separatist movement by validating their basic strategy. He implies the national church is a convenient, but expendable, abstraction whose dioceses--identity intact--can be reorganized into new provinces or new ecclesial entities as it pleases them and the rest of the Communion. If that isn't a green light to Fort Worth and others, what is?
Thus the clarification notes
The primary point was that – theologically and sacramentally speaking – a priest is related in the first place to his/her bishop directly, not through the structure of the national church; that structure serves the dioceses. The diocese is more than a ‘local branch’ of a national organisation.
There is little common ground here with the notion that dioceses are creatures of the provinces of which they are a part, unable to exist on their own apart from them, or in principle unable to secede with their identity intact. Satisfying "is a member of the Episcopal Church" is neat-o but accidental.
That may come as news to some deacons, priests and bishops, who might think they have some ground for allegiance to the national church over and above the diocese. No; it follows, there is no national church for Williams, except in a secondary and derivative sense.
Again, the clarification notes,
[d] The provincial structure is significant, not least for the administration of a uniform canon law and a range of practical functions; Dr Williams is not encouraging anyone to ignore this, [e] simply to understand the theological priorities which have been articulated in a number of ecumenical agreements, and [f] in the light of this not to increase the level of confusion and fragmentation in the church.
Part [d] reiterates Williams' key point with force. The significance of the province is merely instrumental; it is not a church in itself. It has administrative and practical functions that are important--and that is it. Period.
Thus, what might be meant by "fragmentation of the church" in [f]? On my reading of Williams, "church" there does not refer to "The Episcopal Church". There is no such church according to him. Its primary referent is the communion of dioceses, where communion of provinces is apparently taken merely to supervene on the relationship of the dioceses.
Finally, part [e] worries me. I have said a couple of times now that Williams' understanding of the church is not ours: not in the mainstream of normative Anglican tradition. It is private, I claimed, and suspect enough on that account alone. However, he seems to think it is not private. It is rather, he claims, the position on the nature of the church we have committed ourselves to apart from this controversy in ecumenical conversation. Is that right?
A Glimpse into Williams' Ecclesiology
This letter from Archbishop Williams to Bishop Howe of Central Florida has been making the rounds recently with good reason--it is quite a remarkable fragment of ecclesiological thinking.
There is absolutely no question that it will serve to foment fragmentation and division, encouraging those dioceses like Pittsburgh and Fort Worth that wish to leave TEC intact to "get a move on". Williams' idea seems to be that Iker could take Fort Worth out of the Episcopal Church and remain in communion with the See of Canterbury, but a mere parish like Christ Church in Georgia or Truro in Virginia could not do so. I presume this explains why he has been reluctant to extend Lambeth invitations to Minns et al--the issue is not Carey's precedent so much as a more theologically substantive point.
Of course I would like to think I share ground with Williams here. Perhaps we agree that there is something fundamentally disordered about a parish without its bishop withdrawing from one diocese to join another; provided the bishop remains a bishop, it is impossible. The parish priest is a priest only at the behest of his or her bishop, and this is a matter of the parish priest being a priest. Thus, while Williams might not have a problem with Minns being a bishop, he might well have a problem with his claim to Lambeth attendance as a bishop of anything. He isn't a bishop of what was Truro parish anyhow. Then what exactly is he a bishop of?
The matter is different when one considers Bishop Iker taking the Diocese of Fort Worth out of the Episcopal Church. Ater all, for the time being Iker remains a bishop of a diocese.
Williams seems to me, in my limited knowledge, to be following Zizioulas here, a la "Being and Communion". The bishop of a diocese is the basic ecclesial unit on which provinces supervene--the provinces being no more than epiphenomena of their diocesan bases. For the bishop is the necessary precondition for the performance of the essential act of Christian being, namely the Eucharist. Thus we can say where the bishop is, there the church is, as if the church were instantiated wherever a bishop presided, and its "where" was the diocese.
Thus, there is no fundamental block to a province cobbled together of dioceses from England, the US, and Canada; there is no fundamental incoherence in a province continually changing its diocesan membership. The province is simply not necessary for the being of the diocese, and the Archbishop or Presiding Bishop is not at all to the provincial bishop as the bisho pis to the priest and deacon.
This is a very high ecclesiology, I think, and it portends a good deal of near-term chaos--if not long-term anarchy--but to his credit Williams appears ready to take a stand and let the dioceses fall where they may while watching provinces simply evaporate and reform like steam on a window. I had thought Williams was led by a need to keep the Church of England together; it seems I was wrong, as the CoE is just another epiphenomenal province. Consistency would require acknowledging that dioceses of the CoE could form provinces with dioceses of TEC. What might stop them? Tradition, legal problems, potential disestablishment perhaps: who knows?
Property issues are quite beside the point when we are talking the being of bishops and their dioceses. If Iker or Duncan were to leave TEC without property, it would be irrelevant to their standing as bishops of dioceses in communion with Canterbury.
Taking all this into consideration, it is clear what the Episcopal Church should do. It is clear that Bishop Iker cannot just take Fort Worth out of TEC ad hoc; he must, by his diocese's own rules, follow a process that takes time. When the process is completed--legitimately completed--there is no serious theological bar to his leaving TEC with Fort Worth--and of course remaining Anglican in good standing. If his fellow Episcopalian bishops do not like this prospect, there seems to be just one option. Secular law will not help. They will have to remove him and others like him from their positions as bishops of their respective dioceses. And they had better get moving; that process will take time to complete as well. Deposed, Iker and the others would have the status of a Minns: hovering in an ecclesial limbo. And faithful Episcopalians in Fort Worth and elsewhere will be safe.
There is absolutely no question that it will serve to foment fragmentation and division, encouraging those dioceses like Pittsburgh and Fort Worth that wish to leave TEC intact to "get a move on". Williams' idea seems to be that Iker could take Fort Worth out of the Episcopal Church and remain in communion with the See of Canterbury, but a mere parish like Christ Church in Georgia or Truro in Virginia could not do so. I presume this explains why he has been reluctant to extend Lambeth invitations to Minns et al--the issue is not Carey's precedent so much as a more theologically substantive point.
Of course I would like to think I share ground with Williams here. Perhaps we agree that there is something fundamentally disordered about a parish without its bishop withdrawing from one diocese to join another; provided the bishop remains a bishop, it is impossible. The parish priest is a priest only at the behest of his or her bishop, and this is a matter of the parish priest being a priest. Thus, while Williams might not have a problem with Minns being a bishop, he might well have a problem with his claim to Lambeth attendance as a bishop of anything. He isn't a bishop of what was Truro parish anyhow. Then what exactly is he a bishop of?
The matter is different when one considers Bishop Iker taking the Diocese of Fort Worth out of the Episcopal Church. Ater all, for the time being Iker remains a bishop of a diocese.
Williams seems to me, in my limited knowledge, to be following Zizioulas here, a la "Being and Communion". The bishop of a diocese is the basic ecclesial unit on which provinces supervene--the provinces being no more than epiphenomena of their diocesan bases. For the bishop is the necessary precondition for the performance of the essential act of Christian being, namely the Eucharist. Thus we can say where the bishop is, there the church is, as if the church were instantiated wherever a bishop presided, and its "where" was the diocese.
Thus, there is no fundamental block to a province cobbled together of dioceses from England, the US, and Canada; there is no fundamental incoherence in a province continually changing its diocesan membership. The province is simply not necessary for the being of the diocese, and the Archbishop or Presiding Bishop is not at all to the provincial bishop as the bisho pis to the priest and deacon.
This is a very high ecclesiology, I think, and it portends a good deal of near-term chaos--if not long-term anarchy--but to his credit Williams appears ready to take a stand and let the dioceses fall where they may while watching provinces simply evaporate and reform like steam on a window. I had thought Williams was led by a need to keep the Church of England together; it seems I was wrong, as the CoE is just another epiphenomenal province. Consistency would require acknowledging that dioceses of the CoE could form provinces with dioceses of TEC. What might stop them? Tradition, legal problems, potential disestablishment perhaps: who knows?
Property issues are quite beside the point when we are talking the being of bishops and their dioceses. If Iker or Duncan were to leave TEC without property, it would be irrelevant to their standing as bishops of dioceses in communion with Canterbury.
Taking all this into consideration, it is clear what the Episcopal Church should do. It is clear that Bishop Iker cannot just take Fort Worth out of TEC ad hoc; he must, by his diocese's own rules, follow a process that takes time. When the process is completed--legitimately completed--there is no serious theological bar to his leaving TEC with Fort Worth--and of course remaining Anglican in good standing. If his fellow Episcopalian bishops do not like this prospect, there seems to be just one option. Secular law will not help. They will have to remove him and others like him from their positions as bishops of their respective dioceses. And they had better get moving; that process will take time to complete as well. Deposed, Iker and the others would have the status of a Minns: hovering in an ecclesial limbo. And faithful Episcopalians in Fort Worth and elsewhere will be safe.
More Encouraging News
This report from Edgar Ruddock about CAPA is good and quite suggestive; The Lead has excerpts.
The issue has become like poisonous tar--touch it and it will not shake free, and in the meantime it will prove lethal.
For instance, the CAPA meeting was full of interesting stuff, but what conversational implicature gets carries in by this tiny, relatively modest tidbit:
We are united in our conviction that the Lord of the Church is calling upon Africa once again to contend for the ‘faith once and for all delivered to the saints’.
That's political churchbabble, where a good, prima facie biblical thought gets twisted out of recognition to do duty in the service of something else difficult to discern having to do with property, the IRD, and American neoconservatism/ fundamentalism.
And then you wonder if that was the real point and living heart of the CAPA document, for which all the other stuff is just window dressing; i.e. all the energy and eros truly suffuses the property and poltical questions.
The issue has become like poisonous tar--touch it and it will not shake free, and in the meantime it will prove lethal.
For instance, the CAPA meeting was full of interesting stuff, but what conversational implicature gets carries in by this tiny, relatively modest tidbit:
We are united in our conviction that the Lord of the Church is calling upon Africa once again to contend for the ‘faith once and for all delivered to the saints’.
That's political churchbabble, where a good, prima facie biblical thought gets twisted out of recognition to do duty in the service of something else difficult to discern having to do with property, the IRD, and American neoconservatism/ fundamentalism.
And then you wonder if that was the real point and living heart of the CAPA document, for which all the other stuff is just window dressing; i.e. all the energy and eros truly suffuses the property and poltical questions.
The Big Push?
Is this the beginning, or the high-water mark, of the pressure being put on Williams and the Anglican Communion to change course and do something severe to the Episcopal Church?
We have Bishop Nazir Ali applying pressure by threatening not to attend Lambeth, Archbishop Jensen calling for a new Anglican communion, Archbishop Orombi chiming in, and the CAPA provinces issuing their own condemnation--all this admidst similarly placed conservative voices and other lesser lights like David Anderson raising their voices too. That's alot of noise.
But note a few things that might be significant:
(1) These big guns are employing big hyperbole unhelpful to any effort to calm the situation, get parties back to the table, and work anything out. The hyperbole--in many cases obviously false but inflammatory stuff like the claims TEC is abandoning the AC or is ignoring the Primates--signals (a) that what is actually the case needs to be inflated and exaggerated if the Separatist cause is to maintain momentum--the truth is not enough, and (b) these big guns are set in their path, and are interested in moving full-steam ahead somewhere special. They aren't interested any longer in the Windsor Process. Having lost control of its vector, they are ready to try something new.
(2) The new thing that the Spirit is working (I say this with conscious irony) among the Separatists is going forward regardless of whether a split can be engineered in the Church of England. Things are in the works that will not be unwrought; they could be unwrought, efforts could be recalled of course. But they will not be. For instance, Fort Worth is signalling now, apart from any credible threat of fracture in the CoE, that it is abandoning the communion of the Episcopal Church as soon as it can--at least it will give it a sincere try. And we may well see "Global South" provinces trying to poach Episcopal provinces. Duncan is going ahead with his CCCP scheme. It is all very risky, in that they may find themselves out in the cold, having merely enlarged the unhappy Anglican continuum. Part of the Global South gospel, however, is that it is worth the risk. That's news.
(3) I would have thought the news that whole provinces were wagering their full being as church on a risky scheme was big news, and that there was no way they would even have put such a process in motion considering the stakes unless the fix was in and in their favor. But I am willing to bet while the fix is indeed in, it runs against them. Reform's call for a split in the CoE was a dud. If it had not been a dud, things would look very good for the Separatist project. But so far, a split in the CoE looks remote. Sure, there are very unhappy Extremists in the CoE in rather high places who would have happily gone with a split, but for the moment more reasonable voices have held the line. As a result, the note of unity has prevailed--for the moment--and there is no credible threat of a split in the CoE.
As long as there is no credible threat of a split in the CoE, a split in the AC is tolerable. One could say a split in the AC was inevitable anyway, with TEC or else some of the GS being removed in time. Given that fact, the question was which party? The parting of some of the GS has the profound advantage that it can be engineered by the GS itself--they seem all too happy to follow Jensen's advice.
They may waffle; we may see them fail to leave, and there may be more wrangling over whether their American novelties count as Anglican in the normal sense or in some diminished sense. That would be an even better outcome for TEC I think, though the wrangling might be unpleasant. Given how the GS has gummed up the Windsor Process, they are unlikely to be credible partners in how it goes forward even if they stay. For there will always remain a question, given what they have said already about leaving: should we give them what they want in this process, given that they are not serious about the process and they very well may leave instead of seeing it through? That is, there is a good case to be made now that ANY compromise with the GS is stupidly self-defeating, given that they have let all know near and far that they are Quitters at heart relative to the Windsor Process.
Thus, whether they leave soon for a new communion of their own devising, or waffle and wrangle some more--and it seems to me this type of pressure will continue as long as it can be ginned up by the usual suspects--this is the high-water mark. The big bombs yet to fall--Fort Worth and others trying to leave--will not yield the hoped for results, separation and replacement, because there isn't sufficient support in the CoE, as that would require being willing to split the CoE: the quitters becoming disestablished. The big bombs will fall in all likelihood, and there will be a big crash, but that will not qualitatively shift the situation.
We have Bishop Nazir Ali applying pressure by threatening not to attend Lambeth, Archbishop Jensen calling for a new Anglican communion, Archbishop Orombi chiming in, and the CAPA provinces issuing their own condemnation--all this admidst similarly placed conservative voices and other lesser lights like David Anderson raising their voices too. That's alot of noise.
But note a few things that might be significant:
(1) These big guns are employing big hyperbole unhelpful to any effort to calm the situation, get parties back to the table, and work anything out. The hyperbole--in many cases obviously false but inflammatory stuff like the claims TEC is abandoning the AC or is ignoring the Primates--signals (a) that what is actually the case needs to be inflated and exaggerated if the Separatist cause is to maintain momentum--the truth is not enough, and (b) these big guns are set in their path, and are interested in moving full-steam ahead somewhere special. They aren't interested any longer in the Windsor Process. Having lost control of its vector, they are ready to try something new.
(2) The new thing that the Spirit is working (I say this with conscious irony) among the Separatists is going forward regardless of whether a split can be engineered in the Church of England. Things are in the works that will not be unwrought; they could be unwrought, efforts could be recalled of course. But they will not be. For instance, Fort Worth is signalling now, apart from any credible threat of fracture in the CoE, that it is abandoning the communion of the Episcopal Church as soon as it can--at least it will give it a sincere try. And we may well see "Global South" provinces trying to poach Episcopal provinces. Duncan is going ahead with his CCCP scheme. It is all very risky, in that they may find themselves out in the cold, having merely enlarged the unhappy Anglican continuum. Part of the Global South gospel, however, is that it is worth the risk. That's news.
(3) I would have thought the news that whole provinces were wagering their full being as church on a risky scheme was big news, and that there was no way they would even have put such a process in motion considering the stakes unless the fix was in and in their favor. But I am willing to bet while the fix is indeed in, it runs against them. Reform's call for a split in the CoE was a dud. If it had not been a dud, things would look very good for the Separatist project. But so far, a split in the CoE looks remote. Sure, there are very unhappy Extremists in the CoE in rather high places who would have happily gone with a split, but for the moment more reasonable voices have held the line. As a result, the note of unity has prevailed--for the moment--and there is no credible threat of a split in the CoE.
As long as there is no credible threat of a split in the CoE, a split in the AC is tolerable. One could say a split in the AC was inevitable anyway, with TEC or else some of the GS being removed in time. Given that fact, the question was which party? The parting of some of the GS has the profound advantage that it can be engineered by the GS itself--they seem all too happy to follow Jensen's advice.
They may waffle; we may see them fail to leave, and there may be more wrangling over whether their American novelties count as Anglican in the normal sense or in some diminished sense. That would be an even better outcome for TEC I think, though the wrangling might be unpleasant. Given how the GS has gummed up the Windsor Process, they are unlikely to be credible partners in how it goes forward even if they stay. For there will always remain a question, given what they have said already about leaving: should we give them what they want in this process, given that they are not serious about the process and they very well may leave instead of seeing it through? That is, there is a good case to be made now that ANY compromise with the GS is stupidly self-defeating, given that they have let all know near and far that they are Quitters at heart relative to the Windsor Process.
Thus, whether they leave soon for a new communion of their own devising, or waffle and wrangle some more--and it seems to me this type of pressure will continue as long as it can be ginned up by the usual suspects--this is the high-water mark. The big bombs yet to fall--Fort Worth and others trying to leave--will not yield the hoped for results, separation and replacement, because there isn't sufficient support in the CoE, as that would require being willing to split the CoE: the quitters becoming disestablished. The big bombs will fall in all likelihood, and there will be a big crash, but that will not qualitatively shift the situation.
On "God as Father"
Here is a brief piece brought to my attention in a prior comment that might represent a common evangelical view; it criticizes use of "Mother" to refer to God the Father.
Some of her points are astute enough; who would disagree with these?
Because God is not literally a father (i.e., a man who procreates), God is, therefore, a father in a metaphorical sense.
It should also be noted that God’s fatherhood is not about gender. The divine nature is not sexual or gendered in any sense. Although the human nature of Jesus is gendered, the divine nature is not. The fatherhood of God is not tantamount to the inherent masculinity of God.
Because the name “Father” is metaphorical and not literal, it does not speak literally of God’s having a male or masculine nature.
We have a broad base of agreement here, where I would say so far she is exactly right. But then she goes on to say:
The New Testament view is unmistakable: God is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and Mary was his (merely human) mother. And God is not only Jesus’ Father, God is “Our Father.” We have been adopted to “sonship” and are heirs of God, coheirs with Christ. This is the picture and terminology that the Bible uses to present the family relationship of believers to God and Christ. There is no place in this picture for a Mother God alongside or instead of a Father God.
I've put what seems to me to be her main point in a bold font. I presume what she means to say in the last sentence goes further than what she says elsewhere:
The picture of God as a mother is also present in Scripture, such as when Jesus describes himself as a mother hen. However, to make this observation is not to imply that the “father” metaphor is on a par with the “hen” metaphor.
After all, "not being on a par" might be taken to mean "being different". Surely the NT uses fatherhood metaphors for adoption with much greater emphasis than any motherhood metaphors--there is an unmistakable difference in emphasis.
But she wants to draw attention to more than difference in emphasis; maybe she means the fatherhood metaphor has a certain aptness that the motherhood metaphor does not? This even though she readily admits
...it is abundantly clear, especially in the Old Testament, that God is both mother and father to his people. This is rightly understood in a metaphorical sense, pure and simple. God is to us like a mother and like a father.
It comes down to this: "Father" is both a metaphorical descriptor and a metaphorical name, while "Mother" is merely a metaphorical descriptor. Hence:
However, God as the Father of Jesus Christ—as the first person of the triune Godhead—is not “Father” merely in the sense of a simple metaphorical descriptor. Here “Father” serves as a metaphorical name. (A metaphorical name is to be distinguished from a simple metaphor, a figure of speech used to describe one or more attributes of someone or something)....Although the Bible speaks of God in metaphorical imagery that is motherly and feminine, “Mother” is never used in Scripture as a name for God.
Well, that does not do the trick for me. It's interesting, but the problem I have is simply that it is too easy to turn a metaphorical description into a metaphorical name. "Ball and chain" or "dragon" for instance can do duty as a metaphorical decriptor, and then be used to refer as a metaphorical name. There is no special logical barrier to using descriptions as proper names.
Maybe the emphasis of her argument however falls on the phrase "used in Scripture." That is, we should only use those names for God used in Scripture. In that case, the real work in her case is supposed to be done via what seems to me to be a very dubious principle: if it is not done in Scripture it should not be done. In which case I ought not to address God as "God" or "Father"--these names being translations of what appears in Scripture properly speaking. Or I should not drive a car, type, or brush my teeth.
That brings me back to the question: how is "Father" apt, and "Mother" unapt, in such a way that "Mother" should not be used?
Some of her points are astute enough; who would disagree with these?
Because God is not literally a father (i.e., a man who procreates), God is, therefore, a father in a metaphorical sense.
It should also be noted that God’s fatherhood is not about gender. The divine nature is not sexual or gendered in any sense. Although the human nature of Jesus is gendered, the divine nature is not. The fatherhood of God is not tantamount to the inherent masculinity of God.
Because the name “Father” is metaphorical and not literal, it does not speak literally of God’s having a male or masculine nature.
We have a broad base of agreement here, where I would say so far she is exactly right. But then she goes on to say:
The New Testament view is unmistakable: God is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and Mary was his (merely human) mother. And God is not only Jesus’ Father, God is “Our Father.” We have been adopted to “sonship” and are heirs of God, coheirs with Christ. This is the picture and terminology that the Bible uses to present the family relationship of believers to God and Christ. There is no place in this picture for a Mother God alongside or instead of a Father God.
I've put what seems to me to be her main point in a bold font. I presume what she means to say in the last sentence goes further than what she says elsewhere:
The picture of God as a mother is also present in Scripture, such as when Jesus describes himself as a mother hen. However, to make this observation is not to imply that the “father” metaphor is on a par with the “hen” metaphor.
After all, "not being on a par" might be taken to mean "being different". Surely the NT uses fatherhood metaphors for adoption with much greater emphasis than any motherhood metaphors--there is an unmistakable difference in emphasis.
But she wants to draw attention to more than difference in emphasis; maybe she means the fatherhood metaphor has a certain aptness that the motherhood metaphor does not? This even though she readily admits
...it is abundantly clear, especially in the Old Testament, that God is both mother and father to his people. This is rightly understood in a metaphorical sense, pure and simple. God is to us like a mother and like a father.
It comes down to this: "Father" is both a metaphorical descriptor and a metaphorical name, while "Mother" is merely a metaphorical descriptor. Hence:
However, God as the Father of Jesus Christ—as the first person of the triune Godhead—is not “Father” merely in the sense of a simple metaphorical descriptor. Here “Father” serves as a metaphorical name. (A metaphorical name is to be distinguished from a simple metaphor, a figure of speech used to describe one or more attributes of someone or something)....Although the Bible speaks of God in metaphorical imagery that is motherly and feminine, “Mother” is never used in Scripture as a name for God.
Well, that does not do the trick for me. It's interesting, but the problem I have is simply that it is too easy to turn a metaphorical description into a metaphorical name. "Ball and chain" or "dragon" for instance can do duty as a metaphorical decriptor, and then be used to refer as a metaphorical name. There is no special logical barrier to using descriptions as proper names.
Maybe the emphasis of her argument however falls on the phrase "used in Scripture." That is, we should only use those names for God used in Scripture. In that case, the real work in her case is supposed to be done via what seems to me to be a very dubious principle: if it is not done in Scripture it should not be done. In which case I ought not to address God as "God" or "Father"--these names being translations of what appears in Scripture properly speaking. Or I should not drive a car, type, or brush my teeth.
That brings me back to the question: how is "Father" apt, and "Mother" unapt, in such a way that "Mother" should not be used?
The Case of Christ Church, Savannah
I know a bit of Christ Church from having attended a Eucharist there a couple years back while fleeing to Savannah with my then very pregnant wife from a formidible swarm of hurricanes that had left our little central Florida city bruised and without power for some time.
What struck me, aside from the general beauty of Savannah and the considerable beauty of the church building itself, was how vibrant and broad-based the congregation seemed. Even then, however, it was clear the congregation was devoted to separation; we recall how the entire sermon we heard--a Sunday sermon--was devoted to getting ready and getting the courage up to separate. We were taken aback by the commitment of their clergy to the separatist cause; their situation, from what little we could tell, seemed to be pretty well homogenized behind the cause. Of course, that did not keep us from going back around there if only to be in the vicinity of such a marvelous building where we could wonder what if?
What if they really do actually secede? Well, it seems that they have, or have at lest committed themselves to secession even if some formalities remain. A shame, everyone might agree. But those performing the very act itself would no doubt claim they were obligated to take action; not to do so would have been a grave sin of some sort. Is that right?
Why did they do this again? What's the argument exactly?
I. The Argument
Surely there must be a very good argument giving Christ Church secure warrant, such that there are--at least--no outstanding publicly accessible defeaters. It's just the very defeasibility of reasons here that makes secession in general a thing of such awful gravity. This sort of thing can after all be reversed in instances, but it is really quite tough to pull off, and in this case I would say it's very unlikely. People have become disposed to this type of action there; if they have become disposed and the action itself is wrong--or this type of action in this type of situation--that's pretty much just too bad.
Here's Gavin Dunbar on the recent HoB reply to Tanzania; I think the key bit is here:
[A]
The House has not renounced the imagined right of the Episcopal Church to do as it pleases, unconstrained by the teaching of the Bible, the historic Faith, or the Communion’s “bonds of affection”.
This seems to be at least a key premise in any justification the rector would give for making the break now rather than later or even earlier. What would make now so special, after all? Well, the HoB's reply is what is special. It should have renounced the "right" to do as it pleases, etc. by now and has not. Presumably he would say something like Tanzania gave the HoB one last opportunity to make the required renunciation; i.e. in spite of Archbishop Williams' declaration to the contrary, Tanzania really was an ultimatum; Tanzania created a kairos moment for the Epipscopal Church in a very strong sense. I can't make sense of the rector's comments in any other way--am I wrong about how he must have seen Tanzania? Their senior warden stated
[B]
We have witnessed how The Episcopal Church (TEC) has separated itself from the historic Christian faith over the last few decades. In February 2007 TEC received a final call from the Anglican Communion to return to the central tenets of Christianity, and TEC failed to comply with the request by the September 30 deadline. Therefore, TEC has abandoned the communion previously existing between TEC (including the Diocese of Georgia) and Christ Church.
They likely thought something like this:
A line in the case of the Episcopal Church has to be drawn somewhere, and the obligation to draw the line cannot be deferred again and again--such deferrals are irresponsible, even reprehensible given how much--the very health or even final destiny of souls--is at stake.
That's what he seems to have in mind as part of the background of this statement (same doc):
[C]
But the obligations of “constituent” membership in the “larger church” run both ways. The constitutional obligations of the Episcopal Church - to uphold the Bible’s teaching, the Church’s historic Faith and Order, and membership in the Communion – are the covenantal basis of its canonical claims to parochial real property. If it cannot fulfil the former, then the moral basis for the latter disappears.
I give the Dunbar credit for giving clear reasons; not much problem there at all. He seems to have in mind something at least this strong:
(P)
If Christ Church is morally obliged to remain in the Episcopal Church, then the Episcopal Church must remain able to
(1)uphold the Bible's teaching, and
(2) uphold the Church's faith and order, and
(3) retain its membership in the Anglican Communion.
And a Savannah editorial seems to have backed up the idea that this is a large part of the motivation here; the editorial notes
they focus on the greater Episcopal Church's unwillingness to unequivocally back such basic tenets as the authority of scripture, the divinity of Christ and the availability of salvation through Christ's sacrifice.
The way Dunbar speaks, failing on any one of (1)-(3) negates Christ Church's obligation to remain part of TEC. That would--if (P) is indeed true--give Christ Church permission to leave TEC, but that alone would not obligate them to leave. That's not much of a problem prima facie; maybe he'd rewrite (P) as (Q), changing it to read "If Christ Church is morally permitted to remain...." or he'd add to (P) the considerations about the health of souls and so on I mentioned above. Either way he might have argued to completion for an obligation to leave TEC.
II. An Episcopal Service
The Bishop responded:
It is important to clarify the ecclesiastical structure of our denomination. Parishes in our church are not separate congregations but are integral and constituent parts of a diocese and of the larger church. Should some individuals in a parish decide they can no longer be Episcopalians, that in no way changes the fact that Christ Church is and will remain a parish of the Episcopal Church in this diocese and will continue to occupy its present facilities.
Oh my--I bet that didn't persuade anyone. In fact, the Bishop's response was framed by the media and many others as a question merely about who gets the building, i.e. a legal question:
But now that they've left, the only question remaining is: Who gets the property?
According to attorneys with experience in church property laws, the odds are stacked against Christ Church.
However, church leaders say historical and current documents clearly list the wardens and vestry as its owners.
The Episcopal Church claims ownership to all church properties. The denomination considers individual parishes to be held in trust by the congregation.
And I bet the secular arm of the law will decide for one side or another. That may leave partisans of both parties thinking that indeed, the question comes down to property.
Wingers will think the Bishop only cares about the building, and lefties will think the secessionists are cynically interested in getting away like brigands with as much as they possibly can. Indeed, the congregation is not the building it meets in, and the argument over who gets the building is not going to be settled by anything the rector or vestry have said up to this point; the property issue is separate from the theological issue. And one might wonder at the chasm between an obligation to leave, and permission to take property--the latter going with permission to leave it be (I'd really like to see an argument that the congregation is obligated to take its property).
Anyhow, however fascinating the property thing might be, I think both sides would have missed the Bishop's point--which has something more to it. In fact, the Bishop is doing us a service by bringing up the issue: ecclesiology.
The Bishop is NOT saying, in effect, the congregation cannot leave the Episcopal Church, but rather that the congregation cannot leave the Episcopal Church on its own. The congregation might have left with the Bishop's OK. But the congregation alone is not omnicompetent--as all sides would agree--and in particular, it is not competent to leave one communion for another. The congregation does not have that kind of authority; that is analytic to belonging to an episcopal church. However early the congregation of Christ Church claims to be, it was always episocopal, and never properly anyway had the power to make such a decision on its own.
Why is that? The real reason, I think, is that to be an episcopal church--something written into their identity one would have thought--they need a bishop. This is non-negotiable; it is a matter of being, not a matter of election or something to be settled by votes. When they voted without a bishop and against their bishop, they did not vote as a congregation; their action was not an action of the church. It was not merely irregular, but invalid. If they vote were they to vote without a bishop, but with their priest, he could not validly act to preside over such an occasion--a priest by definition presides only at the behest of a bishop.
Private persons on their own cannot just constitute a church by fiat, much less an episcopal one. Being a church is a matter of grace, and is not simply within our power as creatures.
Let us hope they acknowledge the gravity of such an error. That would be the beginning of a better and safer path for them to travel. Communion cuts right to the being of persons as such.
On the other hand, it seems to me in contrast, the Bishop led properly by making his statement. He did not uselessly raise temperatures by arguing the Bible or deeper matters of theology with them on that occasion. They would not have credited any other contrary interpretation different from their own--that would have constituted an outstanding defeater, and such contrary interpretations have long been public. And having made such an elementary error about ecclesiology, how could he have expected them to listen to theology?
But he could have reasonably expected them to heed the call to be the kind of church they ever had professed to truly being--an episcopal church. For whatever else they contended against, they had never contended against the episcopacy, and could have been expected to retain a principled consistency. I suppose it is only the modesty of their Bishop that kept him from being explicit about the frightening gravity of their error.
III. Deconstructing Rector Dunbar
Once the ecclesial problem emerges, it becomes clear, I think, that the entire case for Christ Church collapses. For their case is inconsistent on its own grounds.
When the Dunbar judged the Episcopal Church, he claimed it lost legitimate authority once it failed any one of these:
(1)upholding the Bible's teaching;
(2)upholding the church's faith and order;
(3)retaining membership in the Anglican Communion.
See the problem?
It is very difficult to see how secession, and in particular the very act of secession that the congregation attempted, upholds the faith and order of the church. In fact, it seems pretty clear it does not--and that is hardly a matter of breaking the polity of the Episocpal Church alone, but it is a matter of breaking episocopal polity, period. They have assumed powers as a congregation that imply in practice they are congregational, and that their identity as episcopal is just pretend-- a matter Aesthetic and not Religious, to use Kierkegaard's categories. By that failure alone, the rector would have lost his legitimacy as rector and shepherd of this congregation--going by his own principles. Judge him as he judges--and you shall see.
But then you might wonder: how is this priest competent to make the argument he has made? Is a priest competent to decide as an individual priest what the necessary conditions of his allegiance to his bishop are? Is an individual congregation? Shouldn't these have been decided at a higher level, like GC or at the level of the Anglican Communion (to whom I suppose this rector would say, risibly, his congregation owes its being as church)?
Indeed, note how he implies he has a unilateral competence to decide the nature of the Tanzania communique, even over against the decision of Archbishop Williams who
claimed it was not an ultimatum. Well, this rector says it is--and that settles it? What? At the very least, even if he disagreed with Williams, he should have respected the episcopacy enough to let the Bishops or primates decide. Again--overreaching his competence. Again--making a mockery of the very faith and order of the church whose respect he claims is necessary for legitimate claims of authority. Again--a failure of reason, an embrace of sheer irrationality: it is because I say it is; I am because I will it to be. Sound like anyone?
It reminds me of this passage:
13You said in your heart,
‘I will ascend to heaven;I will raise my throne above the stars of God;
I will sit on the mount of assembly on the heights of Zaphon;*
14I will ascend to the tops of the clouds,
I will make myself like the Most High.’
This ugly bit of the secession sounds to me like the same type of thing first Isaiah was talking about--though I suppose I might be wrong.
Some odds and ends: If the episcopacy is part of Biblical teaching--and there is a good case for it--then he has broken (1) in the very act of attempting to secede without a bishop. And if honoring the authority of the elders of the church, which here and in every episcopal church happen to be bishops, is part of Biblical teaching--the rector et al lose legitimacy on that point as well.
Even (3) is dicey considering how the Lambeth invitations turned out so far. If the rector really were so concerned about (3), wouldn't he have waited at least until he and the others could be sure that in leaving TEC they would still be in the Communion? Is his fiat enough even to make his group a member of the AC? Or even the fiat of his Primate? The issue seems up in the air, a matter still in contention, still being discerned and worked out. At the very least this kind of precipitous leadership looks risky, given the rector's professed values; indeed, it looks reprehensible given his values. How can he claim to uphold any of them while criticizing the Episocpal Church? He should have had his eyes examined--and so should others.
One might be forgiven for thinking something else must be at stake, that he and the others were not really serious about (3)--or about (1) and especially about (2). That is, one might be forgiven--I hope--for wondering if this bunch really has any respect at all for anything more than a selective, convenient, private reading of Scripture, a selective, convenient, private allegiance to the faith and order of the church, and a selective, convenient, and private understanding of what makes for membership in the Communion. What's really going on here?
What struck me, aside from the general beauty of Savannah and the considerable beauty of the church building itself, was how vibrant and broad-based the congregation seemed. Even then, however, it was clear the congregation was devoted to separation; we recall how the entire sermon we heard--a Sunday sermon--was devoted to getting ready and getting the courage up to separate. We were taken aback by the commitment of their clergy to the separatist cause; their situation, from what little we could tell, seemed to be pretty well homogenized behind the cause. Of course, that did not keep us from going back around there if only to be in the vicinity of such a marvelous building where we could wonder what if?
What if they really do actually secede? Well, it seems that they have, or have at lest committed themselves to secession even if some formalities remain. A shame, everyone might agree. But those performing the very act itself would no doubt claim they were obligated to take action; not to do so would have been a grave sin of some sort. Is that right?
Why did they do this again? What's the argument exactly?
I. The Argument
Surely there must be a very good argument giving Christ Church secure warrant, such that there are--at least--no outstanding publicly accessible defeaters. It's just the very defeasibility of reasons here that makes secession in general a thing of such awful gravity. This sort of thing can after all be reversed in instances, but it is really quite tough to pull off, and in this case I would say it's very unlikely. People have become disposed to this type of action there; if they have become disposed and the action itself is wrong--or this type of action in this type of situation--that's pretty much just too bad.
Here's Gavin Dunbar on the recent HoB reply to Tanzania; I think the key bit is here:
[A]
The House has not renounced the imagined right of the Episcopal Church to do as it pleases, unconstrained by the teaching of the Bible, the historic Faith, or the Communion’s “bonds of affection”.
This seems to be at least a key premise in any justification the rector would give for making the break now rather than later or even earlier. What would make now so special, after all? Well, the HoB's reply is what is special. It should have renounced the "right" to do as it pleases, etc. by now and has not. Presumably he would say something like Tanzania gave the HoB one last opportunity to make the required renunciation; i.e. in spite of Archbishop Williams' declaration to the contrary, Tanzania really was an ultimatum; Tanzania created a kairos moment for the Epipscopal Church in a very strong sense. I can't make sense of the rector's comments in any other way--am I wrong about how he must have seen Tanzania? Their senior warden stated
[B]
We have witnessed how The Episcopal Church (TEC) has separated itself from the historic Christian faith over the last few decades. In February 2007 TEC received a final call from the Anglican Communion to return to the central tenets of Christianity, and TEC failed to comply with the request by the September 30 deadline. Therefore, TEC has abandoned the communion previously existing between TEC (including the Diocese of Georgia) and Christ Church.
They likely thought something like this:
A line in the case of the Episcopal Church has to be drawn somewhere, and the obligation to draw the line cannot be deferred again and again--such deferrals are irresponsible, even reprehensible given how much--the very health or even final destiny of souls--is at stake.
That's what he seems to have in mind as part of the background of this statement (same doc):
[C]
But the obligations of “constituent” membership in the “larger church” run both ways. The constitutional obligations of the Episcopal Church - to uphold the Bible’s teaching, the Church’s historic Faith and Order, and membership in the Communion – are the covenantal basis of its canonical claims to parochial real property. If it cannot fulfil the former, then the moral basis for the latter disappears.
I give the Dunbar credit for giving clear reasons; not much problem there at all. He seems to have in mind something at least this strong:
(P)
If Christ Church is morally obliged to remain in the Episcopal Church, then the Episcopal Church must remain able to
(1)uphold the Bible's teaching, and
(2) uphold the Church's faith and order, and
(3) retain its membership in the Anglican Communion.
And a Savannah editorial seems to have backed up the idea that this is a large part of the motivation here; the editorial notes
they focus on the greater Episcopal Church's unwillingness to unequivocally back such basic tenets as the authority of scripture, the divinity of Christ and the availability of salvation through Christ's sacrifice.
The way Dunbar speaks, failing on any one of (1)-(3) negates Christ Church's obligation to remain part of TEC. That would--if (P) is indeed true--give Christ Church permission to leave TEC, but that alone would not obligate them to leave. That's not much of a problem prima facie; maybe he'd rewrite (P) as (Q), changing it to read "If Christ Church is morally permitted to remain...." or he'd add to (P) the considerations about the health of souls and so on I mentioned above. Either way he might have argued to completion for an obligation to leave TEC.
II. An Episcopal Service
The Bishop responded:
It is important to clarify the ecclesiastical structure of our denomination. Parishes in our church are not separate congregations but are integral and constituent parts of a diocese and of the larger church. Should some individuals in a parish decide they can no longer be Episcopalians, that in no way changes the fact that Christ Church is and will remain a parish of the Episcopal Church in this diocese and will continue to occupy its present facilities.
Oh my--I bet that didn't persuade anyone. In fact, the Bishop's response was framed by the media and many others as a question merely about who gets the building, i.e. a legal question:
But now that they've left, the only question remaining is: Who gets the property?
According to attorneys with experience in church property laws, the odds are stacked against Christ Church.
However, church leaders say historical and current documents clearly list the wardens and vestry as its owners.
The Episcopal Church claims ownership to all church properties. The denomination considers individual parishes to be held in trust by the congregation.
And I bet the secular arm of the law will decide for one side or another. That may leave partisans of both parties thinking that indeed, the question comes down to property.
Wingers will think the Bishop only cares about the building, and lefties will think the secessionists are cynically interested in getting away like brigands with as much as they possibly can. Indeed, the congregation is not the building it meets in, and the argument over who gets the building is not going to be settled by anything the rector or vestry have said up to this point; the property issue is separate from the theological issue. And one might wonder at the chasm between an obligation to leave, and permission to take property--the latter going with permission to leave it be (I'd really like to see an argument that the congregation is obligated to take its property).
Anyhow, however fascinating the property thing might be, I think both sides would have missed the Bishop's point--which has something more to it. In fact, the Bishop is doing us a service by bringing up the issue: ecclesiology.
The Bishop is NOT saying, in effect, the congregation cannot leave the Episcopal Church, but rather that the congregation cannot leave the Episcopal Church on its own. The congregation might have left with the Bishop's OK. But the congregation alone is not omnicompetent--as all sides would agree--and in particular, it is not competent to leave one communion for another. The congregation does not have that kind of authority; that is analytic to belonging to an episcopal church. However early the congregation of Christ Church claims to be, it was always episocopal, and never properly anyway had the power to make such a decision on its own.
Why is that? The real reason, I think, is that to be an episcopal church--something written into their identity one would have thought--they need a bishop. This is non-negotiable; it is a matter of being, not a matter of election or something to be settled by votes. When they voted without a bishop and against their bishop, they did not vote as a congregation; their action was not an action of the church. It was not merely irregular, but invalid. If they vote were they to vote without a bishop, but with their priest, he could not validly act to preside over such an occasion--a priest by definition presides only at the behest of a bishop.
Private persons on their own cannot just constitute a church by fiat, much less an episcopal one. Being a church is a matter of grace, and is not simply within our power as creatures.
Let us hope they acknowledge the gravity of such an error. That would be the beginning of a better and safer path for them to travel. Communion cuts right to the being of persons as such.
On the other hand, it seems to me in contrast, the Bishop led properly by making his statement. He did not uselessly raise temperatures by arguing the Bible or deeper matters of theology with them on that occasion. They would not have credited any other contrary interpretation different from their own--that would have constituted an outstanding defeater, and such contrary interpretations have long been public. And having made such an elementary error about ecclesiology, how could he have expected them to listen to theology?
But he could have reasonably expected them to heed the call to be the kind of church they ever had professed to truly being--an episcopal church. For whatever else they contended against, they had never contended against the episcopacy, and could have been expected to retain a principled consistency. I suppose it is only the modesty of their Bishop that kept him from being explicit about the frightening gravity of their error.
III. Deconstructing Rector Dunbar
Once the ecclesial problem emerges, it becomes clear, I think, that the entire case for Christ Church collapses. For their case is inconsistent on its own grounds.
When the Dunbar judged the Episcopal Church, he claimed it lost legitimate authority once it failed any one of these:
(1)upholding the Bible's teaching;
(2)upholding the church's faith and order;
(3)retaining membership in the Anglican Communion.
See the problem?
It is very difficult to see how secession, and in particular the very act of secession that the congregation attempted, upholds the faith and order of the church. In fact, it seems pretty clear it does not--and that is hardly a matter of breaking the polity of the Episocpal Church alone, but it is a matter of breaking episocopal polity, period. They have assumed powers as a congregation that imply in practice they are congregational, and that their identity as episcopal is just pretend-- a matter Aesthetic and not Religious, to use Kierkegaard's categories. By that failure alone, the rector would have lost his legitimacy as rector and shepherd of this congregation--going by his own principles. Judge him as he judges--and you shall see.
But then you might wonder: how is this priest competent to make the argument he has made? Is a priest competent to decide as an individual priest what the necessary conditions of his allegiance to his bishop are? Is an individual congregation? Shouldn't these have been decided at a higher level, like GC or at the level of the Anglican Communion (to whom I suppose this rector would say, risibly, his congregation owes its being as church)?
Indeed, note how he implies he has a unilateral competence to decide the nature of the Tanzania communique, even over against the decision of Archbishop Williams who
claimed it was not an ultimatum. Well, this rector says it is--and that settles it? What? At the very least, even if he disagreed with Williams, he should have respected the episcopacy enough to let the Bishops or primates decide. Again--overreaching his competence. Again--making a mockery of the very faith and order of the church whose respect he claims is necessary for legitimate claims of authority. Again--a failure of reason, an embrace of sheer irrationality: it is because I say it is; I am because I will it to be. Sound like anyone?
It reminds me of this passage:
13You said in your heart,
‘I will ascend to heaven;I will raise my throne above the stars of God;
I will sit on the mount of assembly on the heights of Zaphon;*
14I will ascend to the tops of the clouds,
I will make myself like the Most High.’
This ugly bit of the secession sounds to me like the same type of thing first Isaiah was talking about--though I suppose I might be wrong.
Some odds and ends: If the episcopacy is part of Biblical teaching--and there is a good case for it--then he has broken (1) in the very act of attempting to secede without a bishop. And if honoring the authority of the elders of the church, which here and in every episcopal church happen to be bishops, is part of Biblical teaching--the rector et al lose legitimacy on that point as well.
Even (3) is dicey considering how the Lambeth invitations turned out so far. If the rector really were so concerned about (3), wouldn't he have waited at least until he and the others could be sure that in leaving TEC they would still be in the Communion? Is his fiat enough even to make his group a member of the AC? Or even the fiat of his Primate? The issue seems up in the air, a matter still in contention, still being discerned and worked out. At the very least this kind of precipitous leadership looks risky, given the rector's professed values; indeed, it looks reprehensible given his values. How can he claim to uphold any of them while criticizing the Episocpal Church? He should have had his eyes examined--and so should others.
One might be forgiven for thinking something else must be at stake, that he and the others were not really serious about (3)--or about (1) and especially about (2). That is, one might be forgiven--I hope--for wondering if this bunch really has any respect at all for anything more than a selective, convenient, private reading of Scripture, a selective, convenient, private allegiance to the faith and order of the church, and a selective, convenient, and private understanding of what makes for membership in the Communion. What's really going on here?
An Emerging Mainstream Consensus?
The remarkable, and incoherent, Joint Standing Committee report of the ACC seems to indicate and confirm movement away from service to the Separatist agenda among the "instruments" leading the Anglican Communion.
The report, like the HoB document, embodies an unresolved, destabilizing tension: commitment to moral principle essential to Christian life is combined with an acquiescence to failure about implementing the moral principle in the life of the church. Commitment to inclusion and civil advocacy for homosexuals already places them in a class apart from the reprobate and criminals; such normalization implicitly recognizes no sound reason for keeping homosexuals apart from the life of the church. When, in the next breath, these reports go on to promise to keep homosexuals apart, they set up the relevant tension so many have noticed, left and right. How can the promise be kept--given the moral commitment to inclusion? It seems inevitable that in time the promise will finally dissolve.
How much time? It seems the restraint of the HoB and ACC is pragmatic, a measure meant to achieve an end: keeping the CoE together and TEC in the AC. As a corollary, with that dual end achieved, work will continue toward implementing the moral obligation of inclusion. But again, how much longer? This sounds like opponents of Jim Crow (or slavery) who did not want to agitate but promised in time segregation (or slavery) would vanish from the South. Of course, slavery went on and on, just as segregation went on and on. And this cognitive dissonance between moral principle--what too many in the Communion already know is right--and failure to live out the moral principle could go on and on as well.
Easy objection: when the Separatists separate, the Communion will be able to live with moral consitency and integrity. I will concede the point. The Communion then will not have this Sword of Damocles over its head, and consequently will not feel obliged to accomodate its religious extremists and assorted fanatics. Thus, from a Communion-centered point of view, it makes perfect sense to cheer Duncan and Iker on--and whoever wishes to march behind them--to wherever they are going, provided they are going outside the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion. And it makes sense to cheer each and every ill-timed African ordination of a dissident cleric into some foreign province--especially if those foreign provinces gather together under some new banner somewhere else. In fact, one would hope for perfect efficiency here--a really big tent that could gather each and every mumbling, grumbling, fissiparous separatist. It could be better for them in the long run, and better for their Gospel witness--not to say ours as well. God bless!
But what are the chances of actual separation? Especially one clean enough to gather all and only the vehemently fissiparous? They are not that good. In fact, the JSC and HoB are set against such a clean break; these documents aim at prying modertate conservatives away from radical conservatives. Thus, even if there is another grand southern secession, it is unlikely to spread far enough to bring the desired peace. And we will have to live with, and live out, the tension embodied in these documents in some way that will bring integrity to the life of the Communion.
The good news in this is the widespread tacit acknowledgement of the very moral principle which can lead to blessing SSUs etc. There is a consensus around that--and a consensus too that a split so violent as to break apart the CoE should be avoided now as unnecessary. Surely the hope is that in time the split will lose force. Here, as before, the church is content to see its moral principles gradually implemented by the secular state before the church gets around to adopting them in earnest: Cyrus anointed to show us the way home all over again, again and again. So be it.
The report, like the HoB document, embodies an unresolved, destabilizing tension: commitment to moral principle essential to Christian life is combined with an acquiescence to failure about implementing the moral principle in the life of the church. Commitment to inclusion and civil advocacy for homosexuals already places them in a class apart from the reprobate and criminals; such normalization implicitly recognizes no sound reason for keeping homosexuals apart from the life of the church. When, in the next breath, these reports go on to promise to keep homosexuals apart, they set up the relevant tension so many have noticed, left and right. How can the promise be kept--given the moral commitment to inclusion? It seems inevitable that in time the promise will finally dissolve.
How much time? It seems the restraint of the HoB and ACC is pragmatic, a measure meant to achieve an end: keeping the CoE together and TEC in the AC. As a corollary, with that dual end achieved, work will continue toward implementing the moral obligation of inclusion. But again, how much longer? This sounds like opponents of Jim Crow (or slavery) who did not want to agitate but promised in time segregation (or slavery) would vanish from the South. Of course, slavery went on and on, just as segregation went on and on. And this cognitive dissonance between moral principle--what too many in the Communion already know is right--and failure to live out the moral principle could go on and on as well.
Easy objection: when the Separatists separate, the Communion will be able to live with moral consitency and integrity. I will concede the point. The Communion then will not have this Sword of Damocles over its head, and consequently will not feel obliged to accomodate its religious extremists and assorted fanatics. Thus, from a Communion-centered point of view, it makes perfect sense to cheer Duncan and Iker on--and whoever wishes to march behind them--to wherever they are going, provided they are going outside the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion. And it makes sense to cheer each and every ill-timed African ordination of a dissident cleric into some foreign province--especially if those foreign provinces gather together under some new banner somewhere else. In fact, one would hope for perfect efficiency here--a really big tent that could gather each and every mumbling, grumbling, fissiparous separatist. It could be better for them in the long run, and better for their Gospel witness--not to say ours as well. God bless!
But what are the chances of actual separation? Especially one clean enough to gather all and only the vehemently fissiparous? They are not that good. In fact, the JSC and HoB are set against such a clean break; these documents aim at prying modertate conservatives away from radical conservatives. Thus, even if there is another grand southern secession, it is unlikely to spread far enough to bring the desired peace. And we will have to live with, and live out, the tension embodied in these documents in some way that will bring integrity to the life of the Communion.
The good news in this is the widespread tacit acknowledgement of the very moral principle which can lead to blessing SSUs etc. There is a consensus around that--and a consensus too that a split so violent as to break apart the CoE should be avoided now as unnecessary. Surely the hope is that in time the split will lose force. Here, as before, the church is content to see its moral principles gradually implemented by the secular state before the church gets around to adopting them in earnest: Cyrus anointed to show us the way home all over again, again and again. So be it.
“Not even worth the bullet”
These recent comments have compelled me to speak. Had left-wing bloggers attributed the views expressed in those statements to the right before I saw those statements, I would have thought it impossible, mere inflammatory hyperbole. Make no mistake about it, the spirit behind those comments is in my opinion clearly demonic, a spirit of hate worthy only of the father of lies.
No context could render comments suggesting murder humorous, playful, or worthy of anyone claiming to follow Christ and to show his path to fellow wayfarers.
“Not even….”
The author seems to presume to judge—on behalf of God?—that: the Presiding Bishop, despite her Being in the image of God, is worth less than the chunk of matter needed to assassinate her.
What a failure of moral vision, to be unable to discern that her human life has an inherent dignity and value bestowed by God—who took on such flesh as our presiding Bishop’s to dwell among us.
Joining these blasphemous statements with the many disparaging remarks about women, one has strong grounds to suspect the authors view the mere fact of being a woman to be a sign of being inferior. This smacks dangerously of the Gnostic heresy rendering one part of creation good and the other evil, and the rightly uncanonical Gospel of Thomas, which similarly implied women were inferior—in the “gospel’s” case such that women would have to be made into men in order to be saved. Thanks be to God such ignorance ran aground on the shoals of the Blessed Mother and venerable Christian devotion to her witness.
Surely any Christian claiming orthodoxy cannot share with these men the vicious insinuation that women are an inherently defective creation. Such a view both disparages God as Creator and insults the Godhead, inasmuch as God transcends male/female and yet is their source eminently including them in his nature. If being female implies a defect in nature, God in nature would be defective—absurd. One would have hoped at least that among those clinging to the notion of male/female complimentarity, an intellectual sensitivity to such blasphemy would have prevailed—or perhaps the blasphemy against God’s nature gives the lie to purported devotion to complementarity.
The feeling women are an inferior creation is indeed a sentiment worthy of docetists, who so disparaged humanity in general that they could not admit Jesus Christ was fully human—and was really born of anything like a woman’s body. One wonders if the authors share the sentiment that being carried in a woman’s body brings some taint.
In their call for a return to a church where “men could be men” one hears echoes of the Gnostics, the Gospel of Thomas, and the docetists all wrapped in one, a vision where Christ never bore truly human flesh or was born of a defective vessel, where power in the form of a bullet silences all who resist the flexing of male power, and heaven will be populated by men alone. And we will know that they are real Christian men by their hate.
No context could render comments suggesting murder humorous, playful, or worthy of anyone claiming to follow Christ and to show his path to fellow wayfarers.
“Not even….”
The author seems to presume to judge—on behalf of God?—that: the Presiding Bishop, despite her Being in the image of God, is worth less than the chunk of matter needed to assassinate her.
What a failure of moral vision, to be unable to discern that her human life has an inherent dignity and value bestowed by God—who took on such flesh as our presiding Bishop’s to dwell among us.
Joining these blasphemous statements with the many disparaging remarks about women, one has strong grounds to suspect the authors view the mere fact of being a woman to be a sign of being inferior. This smacks dangerously of the Gnostic heresy rendering one part of creation good and the other evil, and the rightly uncanonical Gospel of Thomas, which similarly implied women were inferior—in the “gospel’s” case such that women would have to be made into men in order to be saved. Thanks be to God such ignorance ran aground on the shoals of the Blessed Mother and venerable Christian devotion to her witness.
Surely any Christian claiming orthodoxy cannot share with these men the vicious insinuation that women are an inherently defective creation. Such a view both disparages God as Creator and insults the Godhead, inasmuch as God transcends male/female and yet is their source eminently including them in his nature. If being female implies a defect in nature, God in nature would be defective—absurd. One would have hoped at least that among those clinging to the notion of male/female complimentarity, an intellectual sensitivity to such blasphemy would have prevailed—or perhaps the blasphemy against God’s nature gives the lie to purported devotion to complementarity.
The feeling women are an inferior creation is indeed a sentiment worthy of docetists, who so disparaged humanity in general that they could not admit Jesus Christ was fully human—and was really born of anything like a woman’s body. One wonders if the authors share the sentiment that being carried in a woman’s body brings some taint.
In their call for a return to a church where “men could be men” one hears echoes of the Gnostics, the Gospel of Thomas, and the docetists all wrapped in one, a vision where Christ never bore truly human flesh or was born of a defective vessel, where power in the form of a bullet silences all who resist the flexing of male power, and heaven will be populated by men alone. And we will know that they are real Christian men by their hate.
Whose spirit is this?
Some things one simply does not joke about: suicide, murder, rape etc. We agree that contemplating certain things--even in jest--is just reprehensible, if not plain sick.
It was something of a surprise to see the following discussion thread at a site, StandFirm, frequented by relatively powerful Anglican intellectuals like Radner, Seitz, Witt, et al. They seem to have kept curious company--just how representative of the Anglican right's "mentality" are comments I-XXV below?
One might pause at the causal, and curiously stubborn, contemplation of extreme violence as humor. Is it all that funny really? I suppose to a certain kind of radical right winger it is all simply hilarious. At least one of the writers below, a priest in post XXV, seems to disagree with Griffith's profession of humor. He writes:
Preserving and defending many things is our way of life and the liberals do not realize that not only are we defending the ‘Faith once received’ but also our way of life, for the joke’s about brown shirts are not that far from the truth.
And:
And one might flinch as well at the caricature of manhood, the caricature of Christ, and the way Griffith gestures at women when he needs an insult, calling his critics at Jake's girls. What a monstrous witness to the power of darkness. Those who, like Archbishop Williams, have played at appeasing this crowd should not be under any illusions as to its nature.
To return to the question of how far the Eliminationist mentality (will the Moderator sell women out when push comes to shove over ordination?) at least has spread on the right, one need go no further than the words of Bishop Duncan, who extolls us to take the point of view of one contemplating who is worthy of being killed--"murdered" I think he means, inasmuch as the martyrdom he wishes to call down would fall on innocents:
"My prayer for us who have gathered here is that...we will be such a threat to the present order that we will be found worth killing, if only Columba's white martyrdom, but, if it be so, let it be the red martyrdom," Duncan said, contrasting the "martyrdom" of asceticism with that of death.
And from David Virtue:
During his sermon in the cathedral, Duncan said that there hasn't been an Archbishop of Canterbury worth killing since 1645, citing Anglican historian Philip Jenkins.
That is just the kind of point of view taken--in jest one hopes--at post X below. A truly extraordinary confluence of violence merely contemplated and attributed to the will of God.
I.
We were quite angry on hearing this and wondered if they realized they were talking to a NM – TX bishop. Their cities may have a lot of urban gang problems; but, they don’t realize most of us have guns, know how to use them and nobody’s gonna mess with our bishops!
Bob Maxwell+
II.
I’m already reaching for my pistol…
Posted by Greg Griffith on 09-28-2007 at 05:15 PM
III.
Threatening in a blog to shoot people is serious. Just sayin’.
Posted by Anthony on 09-28-2007 at 05:31 PM
IV.
Anthony,
Agreed. However, “reachin’ for my pistol” is an old expression I use around here. No threat is being made.
Posted by Greg Griffith on 09-28-2007 at 05:38 PM
V.
Little tin goddess- I would hope that Benedict hears about this and boxes her ears IN PUBLIC ,bunch of carpetbagging tinhorns.
Posted by paddy c on 09-28-2007 at 05:54 PM
VI.
Those Christians—see how they love one another!
I don’t think all of this talk of shooting helps the cause of Christianity or of orthodox Anglicans.
But let the truth be proclaimed on the blogs. They hate that! (Besides, death by blogging isn’t criminal. )
Posted by Ken Peck on 09-28-2007 at 06:25 PM
VII.
Alisdair+ : Perhaps it’s time for the “Small band of former paratroopers” to mobilize and deploy!
Posted by Charles Nightingale on 09-28-2007 at 07:00 PM
VIII.
they don’t realize most of us have guns, know how to use them and nobody’s gonna mess with our bishops!...”
At last… a perfect solution to all this bickering going on in the church. We’ll just kill the sobs. God help any dissenters on Fr. Maxwell’s vestry.
Posted by Virg on 09-29-2007 at 08:48 AM
IX.
I’m already reaching for my pistol…
Hey, what gives with this? The Commenatrix (Blessed be her name) got on my case for saying a lot less than that.
It should be quite evident to all by now that our Presiding Marine Biologist and all the 815 gang are not liken to a school of angelfish. They are sharks, pure and simple.
the snarkster
Posted by the snarkster on 09-29-2007 at 08:59 AM
X.
Frankly, Fr. Maxwell, I wouldn’t waste a bullet on her.
Posted by Frances Scott on 09-29-2007 at 10:32 AM
XI.
Frankly, Fr. Maxwell, I wouldn’t waste a bullet on her.
Can we get back to humor,intellectual discourse and walking as the Lord would have us do? Let hatred be their prison not ours. Intercessor
Posted by Intercessor on 09-29-2007 at 10:53 AM
XII.
I will just point out that the talk of guns will be used to confirm the idea that we are a bunch of thugs. I would have thought that after the first person posted a caution, it would have stopped. Greg, I understand that it may mean something else to you and a few others, but it will be perceived as a threatening statement, and the original statement is not even a thinly veiled threat. The only possible reading is, “If you mess with Bishop Steenson, you risk facing our guns.” This cannot possibly have a Christian interpretation. It’s a bit like Peter carrying his sword into the Garden of Gethsemane.
Aren’t the people who blog and comment here above this. Someone important, at least He is important to me, once said, “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” In context, it could easily be taken to mean, “Pray even for the Roman soldiers, who extort money from you.” Someone else, much less important, said, “Never hate your enemy. It clouds your judgment.”
I would love to hear what Sarah has to say about the strategic implications of posting comments like, “Most of us have guns and know how to use them.” I can just imagine how ENS would use this. “PB threatened by radicals on StandFirm.” In any case, the remarks reflect and error in judgment at best, and at worst, they reflect hearts that are filled with rage.
Posted by revrj on 09-29-2007 at 12:32 PM
XIII.
they reflect hearts that are filled with rage.
in other news, grass is green, water is wet, and politicians are liars.
of course we’re filled with RAGE (some of us, anyhow). given the galling actions taken against an institution that we care(d) for, what else do you expect?
Posted by Clay From Dallas on 09-29-2007 at 01:14 PM
XIV.
Of course, no one is threatening anyone with anything here. I’ll caution anyone pondering a real threat to read our comment policy, but I’ll also remind those who think we’re under orders to keep everything here cupcakes and bunny rabbits not to fall for the caricature of Jesus that our Worthy Opponents have tried to sell us… how was it put the other day? - A sort of zoned-out hippie pacifist, wandering from town to town, spouting Zen koans and harmless parables?
Let’s not forget that the people in these churches have in many cases put their life’s work into them; that their parents and grandparents are buried in the graveyard; it’s where their children were baptized, confirmed and married; and that the people we’re up against are nasty - there’s no other way to say it - and they’re playing for keeps.
I won’t criticize those who think the best course is to play the pacifist, but they shouldn’t find fault with those who want to pick up their sword along with their trowel.
Posted by Greg Griffith on 09-29-2007 at 01:33 PM
XV.
“Mess with” is a Texas term as someone pointed out earlier
“Don’t mess with Texas” is an award winning anti-litter advertising campaign. The penalty for messing with Texas doesn’t have anything to do with firearms, but is a hefty fine.
While the talk of guns may be merely an expression of righteous indignation, I still think it is a disservice to the Christian and orthodox causes. And certainly the Opposition will cite it as an example of “homophobia” or whatever.
Speak the truth in love.
Or as Jesus reminded us, “Love your enemies...” (And has someone has added, “...and drive them nuts.")
Lovingly blog the Way, the Truth and the Life. It will drive The Enemy up the wall! They hate it when we do that.
Posted by Ken Peck on 09-29-2007 at 01:57 PM
XVI.
In Ken Burns’s WAR last night, there was an interview with a Ranger or maybe a Marine who was in a crack unit that was being disatched in secret to face the Japs. The sargent, when asked by reporters what was their missin replied,"We just take care of people. When we meet a Jap we just take care of him.” He was probably from Texas.
Posted by PROPHET MICAIAH on 09-29-2007 at 08:37 PM
XVII.
Just for your info, this thread is being followed on Jake’s site, with comments about how violent and bullying we orthodox are. (It also includes some notes on Bp Duncan’s address at the Common Cause meeting, where he speaks about those who held to orthodoxy in the face of persecution.)
Just as one should be careful in the type of jokes one makes while waiting to go through security at an airport, it would be wise to watch our humorous comments—we may be “just joshing” among ourselves, but we are not alone—and reappraisers are not known for their light-hearted sense of humor.
Posted by AnglicanXn on 09-29-2007 at 08:58 P
XVIII.
AnglicanXn,
I saw that thread at Jake’s place. It consists mainly of the same little gaggle of shrieking schoolgirls that always posts over there, plus TaoMikael calling me (for the eleventy-billionth time) a propagandist interested only in pumping up the traffic stats for the site. (True fact: Ever since we ditched SiteMeter some months ago, I have looked at our stats once, and was so distressed by the difficulty of using our web host’s stats package I’ve never done it again).
While I appreciate your advice about watching our p’s and q’s, I refuse to conform my posts to the delicate sensibilities of Jake and his gals. This will always be a place where men can feel free to be men… the kind of place our church used to be, once upon a time.
Posted by Greg Griffith on 09-29-2007 at 09:16 PM
XIX.
Greg, Yo da maiin!
Posted by PROPHET MICAIAH on 09-29-2007 at 10:06 PM
XX.
To all those who are concerned about Fr. Jake Stop’s the World (yeah right) posting this thread and any other from Stand Frim in Faith and its posters I say this: I would suspect that Fr. Jake’s website hits were extremely low and comments barely there because his musings lack depth. So to spice things up and get some things rolling for his numbers he has decided that picking and plucking postings & comments from the favorite targeted website there is for liberal revisionists is of course, Stand Firm in Faith. Fr. Jake lacks the skills in being able to write his own postings that would invite good debate or conversation and thus must continue to stir the pot, if you will, in taking comments from another website (SFiF) and then build a post from it to allow those who seem to want to swim in the sewer and partake of droppings that are out of context. Most, not all but most, of those that post on Fr. Jake’s site do not post here. Why? Are they afraid of not being able to answer the hard questions? It certainly cannot be fear of their postings not getting posted since SFiF is not like all other liberal sites that weed through postings and decide who is and who is not acceptable in their eyes to have their comments posted & read. To me Fr. Jake and others like him do not have the character it takes to stand on their own without standing on others.
Posted by One Day Closer on 09-30-2007 at 09:59 AM
XXI.
I shoulda known better, but I had to take a peek at Fr. Jake. He is into this thread like (fill in with favorite simile). What morbid fascination in a little conservative levity! It is real spiritual (fill in with favorite metaphore). I am a lady and won’t stoop to some of their more biological word pictures, I guess that is all Jake’s gals have to offer. Potty language!
Posted by Crabby in MD on 09-30-2007 at 09:59 AM
XXII.
Right on ODC..I am more concerned about SpongeBob guarding the Crabby Patty recipe than the rant and reflection of Mother Jake. Intercessor
Posted by Intercessor on 09-30-2007 at 10:30 AM
XXIII.
Greg, You are such a cliche: such a man you are, all testosterone blazing, guns and swords out. And such a guys-only club, too! Is this really how you see yourself as a Christian? Very, very sad…
Posted by michael cudney on 09-30-2007 at 12:17 PM
XXIV.
michael cudney,
You’re over-analyzing things. The only way you can visit SF and come away thinking “all testosterone blazing,” is to have spent WAY too much time in the extreme, hyper-feminine wing of the Episcopal church. You and Jake’s girls need to get out into the real world more often. You know… experience more diversity.
Posted by Greg Griffith on 09-30-2007 at 01:05 PM
XXV
I have to admit I have followed this debate with interest, mostly as the second the topic of defence is raised our not so Worthy Opponents scream blue blazes.
So here is my first question to those at Jake’s site. How many of you have served as a Chaplain in the Military or Police Force? I am willing to bet nor many. I think the answer from my ordained friends here would be somewhat different, combined with the fact that probably more than one used the GI Bill to pay for seminary. Why does this matter? It matters becasue we tend to understand our flock becasue many of them come from a similar background. It is no accident I think that the Left is scared of the conservatives becasue we have so much background in the military and law enforcement. We have all taken a vow to “defend’ either the Consititution of the USA of for me and probably a few other “the Sovereign’s Majesty.” Preserving and defending many things is our way of life and the liberals do not realize that not only are we defending the ‘Faith once received’ but also our way of life, for the joke’s about brown shirts are not that far from the truth.
Already we are having less and less say what our children are taught in schools. They are even taught that homosexuality is ok despite Biblical proscription not withstanding the medical facts that it will kill you or lessen your life by 50%. I used to smoke but the second the doctor proved to me it was killing me I quit. The Primates told the HoB this was killing the communion. The HoB is back to being school children smoking behind the bicyle sheds bullying those who aren’t in the ‘cool group.’ I would suggest they are the bullies. What a bully fears most is when the bullied has ultimatley had enough, and our joking was an expression of that.
Mostly because since the HoB Meeting and what most view as the dismal faliure of their responce the ante has most certainly been upped with the Common Cause Patners saying enough is enough. By indications of what we have on record from Bob+ all methods honorable and dishonorable are going to be added to 815’s arsenal, and that is very, very sad for all.
It is sad that we have to feel the need to defend ourselves, almost to the point of doing that one thing most of us who have done it, pray we never have; to take up arms to defend our way of life. That is what the reference to Small band of paratroppers was. I doubt that Jake knows that all airborne troopers are taught to form small groups upon landing till they all link up then ulitmately form small groups again to do what they are trained to do and that is distupt enemy operation behind the lines by taking and holding things away from them to deny them the use of such. It is called attacking being the best form of defence:)
I do feel sorry for those over at ‘that other site’ really don’t get it that we will not allow false teaching to be rammed down our throat. Since TGCC has declined to participate as a Bible believing province they are scared stiff that we will seek protection from a true bishop who does not threaten his flock but nutures them as he vowed to do.
I’ve said my peace (deliberate pun). I escaped TGCC’s clutches in 2000 and want to see a separate province so we can all be at peace. It is obvious we are never going to agree and neither side wishes to have the others point of view rammed down their throat, so peace may best be allowed for he by letting those who wish to leave, leave and with property if the majority so chose, they paid for it, and paid the clergy salaries, so it is theirs despite what some dubious internal rule says.
“O Lord, Thou knowest how busy I must be this day. If I forget Thee, do not forget me”
The Prayer of Sir. Jacob Astley, 1st Baron Astley of Reading.
Alasdair+
Posted by Alasdair+ on 09-30-2007 at 01:15 PM
It was something of a surprise to see the following discussion thread at a site, StandFirm, frequented by relatively powerful Anglican intellectuals like Radner, Seitz, Witt, et al. They seem to have kept curious company--just how representative of the Anglican right's "mentality" are comments I-XXV below?
One might pause at the causal, and curiously stubborn, contemplation of extreme violence as humor. Is it all that funny really? I suppose to a certain kind of radical right winger it is all simply hilarious. At least one of the writers below, a priest in post XXV, seems to disagree with Griffith's profession of humor. He writes:
Preserving and defending many things is our way of life and the liberals do not realize that not only are we defending the ‘Faith once received’ but also our way of life, for the joke’s about brown shirts are not that far from the truth.
And:
It is sad that we have to feel the need to defend ourselves, almost to the point of doing that one thing most of us who have done it, pray we never have; to take up arms to defend our way of life. That is what the reference to Small band of paratroppers was. I doubt that Jake knows that all airborne troopers are taught to form small groups upon landing till they all link up then ulitmately form small groups again to do what they are trained to do and that is distupt enemy operation behind the lines by taking and holding things away from them to deny them the use of such.
He seems almost--but thankfully not quite--ready to don a brown shirt and take up arms to defend his way of life. That from--apparently--a priest! Hopefully he speaks for nobody, and all his tough talk is just empty bluster--more "humor" from the radical fringe.And one might flinch as well at the caricature of manhood, the caricature of Christ, and the way Griffith gestures at women when he needs an insult, calling his critics at Jake's girls. What a monstrous witness to the power of darkness. Those who, like Archbishop Williams, have played at appeasing this crowd should not be under any illusions as to its nature.
To return to the question of how far the Eliminationist mentality (will the Moderator sell women out when push comes to shove over ordination?) at least has spread on the right, one need go no further than the words of Bishop Duncan, who extolls us to take the point of view of one contemplating who is worthy of being killed--"murdered" I think he means, inasmuch as the martyrdom he wishes to call down would fall on innocents:
"My prayer for us who have gathered here is that...we will be such a threat to the present order that we will be found worth killing, if only Columba's white martyrdom, but, if it be so, let it be the red martyrdom," Duncan said, contrasting the "martyrdom" of asceticism with that of death.
And from David Virtue:
During his sermon in the cathedral, Duncan said that there hasn't been an Archbishop of Canterbury worth killing since 1645, citing Anglican historian Philip Jenkins.
That is just the kind of point of view taken--in jest one hopes--at post X below. A truly extraordinary confluence of violence merely contemplated and attributed to the will of God.
I've extracted some relevant posts from the thread and numbered them with Roman numerals for future reference, highlighting Griffith's posts in boldface. Thanks Jake for bringing this to our attention. I'm sure Mother Mary--one of the gals--would thank you too.
I.
We were quite angry on hearing this and wondered if they realized they were talking to a NM – TX bishop. Their cities may have a lot of urban gang problems; but, they don’t realize most of us have guns, know how to use them and nobody’s gonna mess with our bishops!
Bob Maxwell+
II.
I’m already reaching for my pistol…
Posted by Greg Griffith on 09-28-2007 at 05:15 PM
III.
Threatening in a blog to shoot people is serious. Just sayin’.
Posted by Anthony on 09-28-2007 at 05:31 PM
IV.
Anthony,
Agreed. However, “reachin’ for my pistol” is an old expression I use around here. No threat is being made.
Posted by Greg Griffith on 09-28-2007 at 05:38 PM
V.
Little tin goddess- I would hope that Benedict hears about this and boxes her ears IN PUBLIC ,bunch of carpetbagging tinhorns.
Posted by paddy c on 09-28-2007 at 05:54 PM
VI.
Those Christians—see how they love one another!
I don’t think all of this talk of shooting helps the cause of Christianity or of orthodox Anglicans.
But let the truth be proclaimed on the blogs. They hate that! (Besides, death by blogging isn’t criminal. )
Posted by Ken Peck on 09-28-2007 at 06:25 PM
VII.
Alisdair+ : Perhaps it’s time for the “Small band of former paratroopers” to mobilize and deploy!
Posted by Charles Nightingale on 09-28-2007 at 07:00 PM
VIII.
they don’t realize most of us have guns, know how to use them and nobody’s gonna mess with our bishops!...”
At last… a perfect solution to all this bickering going on in the church. We’ll just kill the sobs. God help any dissenters on Fr. Maxwell’s vestry.
Posted by Virg on 09-29-2007 at 08:48 AM
IX.
I’m already reaching for my pistol…
Hey, what gives with this? The Commenatrix (Blessed be her name) got on my case for saying a lot less than that.
It should be quite evident to all by now that our Presiding Marine Biologist and all the 815 gang are not liken to a school of angelfish. They are sharks, pure and simple.
the snarkster
Posted by the snarkster on 09-29-2007 at 08:59 AM
X.
Frankly, Fr. Maxwell, I wouldn’t waste a bullet on her.
Posted by Frances Scott on 09-29-2007 at 10:32 AM
XI.
Frankly, Fr. Maxwell, I wouldn’t waste a bullet on her.
Can we get back to humor,intellectual discourse and walking as the Lord would have us do? Let hatred be their prison not ours. Intercessor
Posted by Intercessor on 09-29-2007 at 10:53 AM
XII.
I will just point out that the talk of guns will be used to confirm the idea that we are a bunch of thugs. I would have thought that after the first person posted a caution, it would have stopped. Greg, I understand that it may mean something else to you and a few others, but it will be perceived as a threatening statement, and the original statement is not even a thinly veiled threat. The only possible reading is, “If you mess with Bishop Steenson, you risk facing our guns.” This cannot possibly have a Christian interpretation. It’s a bit like Peter carrying his sword into the Garden of Gethsemane.
Aren’t the people who blog and comment here above this. Someone important, at least He is important to me, once said, “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” In context, it could easily be taken to mean, “Pray even for the Roman soldiers, who extort money from you.” Someone else, much less important, said, “Never hate your enemy. It clouds your judgment.”
I would love to hear what Sarah has to say about the strategic implications of posting comments like, “Most of us have guns and know how to use them.” I can just imagine how ENS would use this. “PB threatened by radicals on StandFirm.” In any case, the remarks reflect and error in judgment at best, and at worst, they reflect hearts that are filled with rage.
Posted by revrj on 09-29-2007 at 12:32 PM
XIII.
they reflect hearts that are filled with rage.
in other news, grass is green, water is wet, and politicians are liars.
of course we’re filled with RAGE (some of us, anyhow). given the galling actions taken against an institution that we care(d) for, what else do you expect?
Posted by Clay From Dallas on 09-29-2007 at 01:14 PM
XIV.
Of course, no one is threatening anyone with anything here. I’ll caution anyone pondering a real threat to read our comment policy, but I’ll also remind those who think we’re under orders to keep everything here cupcakes and bunny rabbits not to fall for the caricature of Jesus that our Worthy Opponents have tried to sell us… how was it put the other day? - A sort of zoned-out hippie pacifist, wandering from town to town, spouting Zen koans and harmless parables?
Let’s not forget that the people in these churches have in many cases put their life’s work into them; that their parents and grandparents are buried in the graveyard; it’s where their children were baptized, confirmed and married; and that the people we’re up against are nasty - there’s no other way to say it - and they’re playing for keeps.
I won’t criticize those who think the best course is to play the pacifist, but they shouldn’t find fault with those who want to pick up their sword along with their trowel.
Posted by Greg Griffith on 09-29-2007 at 01:33 PM
XV.
“Mess with” is a Texas term as someone pointed out earlier
“Don’t mess with Texas” is an award winning anti-litter advertising campaign. The penalty for messing with Texas doesn’t have anything to do with firearms, but is a hefty fine.
While the talk of guns may be merely an expression of righteous indignation, I still think it is a disservice to the Christian and orthodox causes. And certainly the Opposition will cite it as an example of “homophobia” or whatever.
Speak the truth in love.
Or as Jesus reminded us, “Love your enemies...” (And has someone has added, “...and drive them nuts.")
Lovingly blog the Way, the Truth and the Life. It will drive The Enemy up the wall! They hate it when we do that.
Posted by Ken Peck on 09-29-2007 at 01:57 PM
XVI.
In Ken Burns’s WAR last night, there was an interview with a Ranger or maybe a Marine who was in a crack unit that was being disatched in secret to face the Japs. The sargent, when asked by reporters what was their missin replied,"We just take care of people. When we meet a Jap we just take care of him.” He was probably from Texas.
Posted by PROPHET MICAIAH on 09-29-2007 at 08:37 PM
XVII.
Just for your info, this thread is being followed on Jake’s site, with comments about how violent and bullying we orthodox are. (It also includes some notes on Bp Duncan’s address at the Common Cause meeting, where he speaks about those who held to orthodoxy in the face of persecution.)
Just as one should be careful in the type of jokes one makes while waiting to go through security at an airport, it would be wise to watch our humorous comments—we may be “just joshing” among ourselves, but we are not alone—and reappraisers are not known for their light-hearted sense of humor.
Posted by AnglicanXn on 09-29-2007 at 08:58 P
XVIII.
AnglicanXn,
I saw that thread at Jake’s place. It consists mainly of the same little gaggle of shrieking schoolgirls that always posts over there, plus TaoMikael calling me (for the eleventy-billionth time) a propagandist interested only in pumping up the traffic stats for the site. (True fact: Ever since we ditched SiteMeter some months ago, I have looked at our stats once, and was so distressed by the difficulty of using our web host’s stats package I’ve never done it again).
While I appreciate your advice about watching our p’s and q’s, I refuse to conform my posts to the delicate sensibilities of Jake and his gals. This will always be a place where men can feel free to be men… the kind of place our church used to be, once upon a time.
Posted by Greg Griffith on 09-29-2007 at 09:16 PM
XIX.
Greg, Yo da maiin!
Posted by PROPHET MICAIAH on 09-29-2007 at 10:06 PM
XX.
To all those who are concerned about Fr. Jake Stop’s the World (yeah right) posting this thread and any other from Stand Frim in Faith and its posters I say this: I would suspect that Fr. Jake’s website hits were extremely low and comments barely there because his musings lack depth. So to spice things up and get some things rolling for his numbers he has decided that picking and plucking postings & comments from the favorite targeted website there is for liberal revisionists is of course, Stand Firm in Faith. Fr. Jake lacks the skills in being able to write his own postings that would invite good debate or conversation and thus must continue to stir the pot, if you will, in taking comments from another website (SFiF) and then build a post from it to allow those who seem to want to swim in the sewer and partake of droppings that are out of context. Most, not all but most, of those that post on Fr. Jake’s site do not post here. Why? Are they afraid of not being able to answer the hard questions? It certainly cannot be fear of their postings not getting posted since SFiF is not like all other liberal sites that weed through postings and decide who is and who is not acceptable in their eyes to have their comments posted & read. To me Fr. Jake and others like him do not have the character it takes to stand on their own without standing on others.
Posted by One Day Closer on 09-30-2007 at 09:59 AM
XXI.
I shoulda known better, but I had to take a peek at Fr. Jake. He is into this thread like (fill in with favorite simile). What morbid fascination in a little conservative levity! It is real spiritual (fill in with favorite metaphore). I am a lady and won’t stoop to some of their more biological word pictures, I guess that is all Jake’s gals have to offer. Potty language!
Posted by Crabby in MD on 09-30-2007 at 09:59 AM
XXII.
Right on ODC..I am more concerned about SpongeBob guarding the Crabby Patty recipe than the rant and reflection of Mother Jake. Intercessor
Posted by Intercessor on 09-30-2007 at 10:30 AM
XXIII.
Greg, You are such a cliche: such a man you are, all testosterone blazing, guns and swords out. And such a guys-only club, too! Is this really how you see yourself as a Christian? Very, very sad…
Posted by michael cudney on 09-30-2007 at 12:17 PM
XXIV.
michael cudney,
You’re over-analyzing things. The only way you can visit SF and come away thinking “all testosterone blazing,” is to have spent WAY too much time in the extreme, hyper-feminine wing of the Episcopal church. You and Jake’s girls need to get out into the real world more often. You know… experience more diversity.
Posted by Greg Griffith on 09-30-2007 at 01:05 PM
XXV
I have to admit I have followed this debate with interest, mostly as the second the topic of defence is raised our not so Worthy Opponents scream blue blazes.
So here is my first question to those at Jake’s site. How many of you have served as a Chaplain in the Military or Police Force? I am willing to bet nor many. I think the answer from my ordained friends here would be somewhat different, combined with the fact that probably more than one used the GI Bill to pay for seminary. Why does this matter? It matters becasue we tend to understand our flock becasue many of them come from a similar background. It is no accident I think that the Left is scared of the conservatives becasue we have so much background in the military and law enforcement. We have all taken a vow to “defend’ either the Consititution of the USA of for me and probably a few other “the Sovereign’s Majesty.” Preserving and defending many things is our way of life and the liberals do not realize that not only are we defending the ‘Faith once received’ but also our way of life, for the joke’s about brown shirts are not that far from the truth.
Already we are having less and less say what our children are taught in schools. They are even taught that homosexuality is ok despite Biblical proscription not withstanding the medical facts that it will kill you or lessen your life by 50%. I used to smoke but the second the doctor proved to me it was killing me I quit. The Primates told the HoB this was killing the communion. The HoB is back to being school children smoking behind the bicyle sheds bullying those who aren’t in the ‘cool group.’ I would suggest they are the bullies. What a bully fears most is when the bullied has ultimatley had enough, and our joking was an expression of that.
Mostly because since the HoB Meeting and what most view as the dismal faliure of their responce the ante has most certainly been upped with the Common Cause Patners saying enough is enough. By indications of what we have on record from Bob+ all methods honorable and dishonorable are going to be added to 815’s arsenal, and that is very, very sad for all.
It is sad that we have to feel the need to defend ourselves, almost to the point of doing that one thing most of us who have done it, pray we never have; to take up arms to defend our way of life. That is what the reference to Small band of paratroppers was. I doubt that Jake knows that all airborne troopers are taught to form small groups upon landing till they all link up then ulitmately form small groups again to do what they are trained to do and that is distupt enemy operation behind the lines by taking and holding things away from them to deny them the use of such. It is called attacking being the best form of defence:)
I do feel sorry for those over at ‘that other site’ really don’t get it that we will not allow false teaching to be rammed down our throat. Since TGCC has declined to participate as a Bible believing province they are scared stiff that we will seek protection from a true bishop who does not threaten his flock but nutures them as he vowed to do.
I’ve said my peace (deliberate pun). I escaped TGCC’s clutches in 2000 and want to see a separate province so we can all be at peace. It is obvious we are never going to agree and neither side wishes to have the others point of view rammed down their throat, so peace may best be allowed for he by letting those who wish to leave, leave and with property if the majority so chose, they paid for it, and paid the clergy salaries, so it is theirs despite what some dubious internal rule says.
“O Lord, Thou knowest how busy I must be this day. If I forget Thee, do not forget me”
The Prayer of Sir. Jacob Astley, 1st Baron Astley of Reading.
Alasdair+
Posted by Alasdair+ on 09-30-2007 at 01:15 PM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)