Question:
<snip I suspect that our fellow-poster Zephon wouldn’t be quite so quick to condemn me as irrationally cynical if he had a better idea of what’s going on in PA.
And that just proves how full of s__t you are. I belong to the Diocese of PA and know Bishop Bennison personally. Your outrageous slander that he would rather be rid of the Traditionalists but keep their property is wicked and irresponsible. I have already posted my views on the good Bishop Bennison v. the factious priest Moyer so many times that I am just tired of the subject and have nothing more to offer. And David Virtue is so biased and disingenuous that anyone who has the audacity to recommend him to an Episcopal newsgroup immediately loses all credibility. Zephon
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – <snip I suspect that our fellow-poster Zephon wouldn’t be quite so quick to condemn me as irrationally cynical if he had a better idea of what’s going on in PA. And that just proves how full of s__t you are. I belong to the Diocese of PA and know Bishop Bennison personally. Your outrageous slander that he would rather be rid of the Traditionalists but keep their property is wicked and irresponsible. I have already posted my views on the good Bishop Bennison v. the factious priest Moyer so many times that I am just tired of the subject and have nothing more to offer. And David Virtue is so biased and disingenuous that anyone who has the audacity to recommend him to an Episcopal newsgroup immediately loses all credibility. Zephon
WHOA, WHOA, WHOA! Zephon, I tend to align with you theologically (as best I can discern), especially on the subject of gay Christians, but please, take a few deep breaths. On another thread you’re calling LP a "gay-basher". Here you’re calling him "full of s__t". I really, really don’t think LP deserves this sort of personal abuse. Yes, he can be exasparating to "dance" with (see my just-posted comments on the "Love The Sinner" thread), but please, try to keep things in perspective. If all the (nominal) college-age Christians I’ve known were even one-tenth as knowledgeable and erudite as LP, our Church would be in much better shape. I do believe, Zephon — and correct me if I’m wrong — that Bishop Griswold has declared himself to be "troubled" by some of Bishop Bennison’s peremptory conduct toward the "traditionalist" parishes. I do believe there’s a problem of "attitude" there. God knows, I don’t put all the "blame" on one side over the other; but I think it behooves a bishop, in a contentious situation like this, to be extremely discerning and prudent and patient…and (yes) personally humble, even when he/she is confronted by "screaming fits" at the other end of the circuit. Perhaps most especially in such instances, where the bishop’s own pastoral credibility is being tested. Comments?
Response:
<snip – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – As Dana says, there is simply NO GOOD PASTORAL REASON for the diocesan bishop to declare, "No, I’m your bishop, and you do it my way, and you do what I say, and I’m going to assert my ‘lordly right’ to impose myself on you, whether you like it or not, whether you like ME or not". That, No good pastoral reason, no — but perhaps good political and financial reasons. Besides, I don’t think the revisionist bishops have any desire to be pastors to the orthodox or anglo-catholics in their fold. I think they’ve written them off as undesireable and undesired, have decided the schism is inevitable (so what does it matter if their actions aggravate the situation) — and accordingly, far from being a shepherd, are actively throwing those members of their flocks to the legal and fiduciary wolves. a) a true pastoral change of heart, and change of attitude, on the part of some arrogant ECUSA bishops who have been "pushing and shoving" their traditonalist congregations, needs to be tried first. Short of THAT episcopal metanoia, nothing but bloodshed is predictable. You’re quite right. However, all indications are that the bishops are commited to their intolerant revisionism, that they’ve decided that the bloodshed is unavoidable, and so they see no reason to refrain from shedding the orthodox’ blood. Yeah, it sounds cynical. Unfortunately, it isn’t. Having been following the news in PECUSA for some years now, I’m afraid that’s simply the clearest and most logical explanation to what’s going on. I wish it weren’t. If you’re interested in following such events, there’s a listserv news service at http://www.orthodoxanglican.org/virtuosity. The journalist who puts the news together is a traditionalist evangelical, and his editorials are often fairly one-sided and ‘prickly’ (I sometimes just skip over his [often quite entertaining] harangues), but it’s still a good source of news and facts, and he’ll often include the text of various PECUSA announcements, transcripts of meetings, public letters between bishops, letters of vestries to bishops, etc. So, no matter what your position or beliefs, its a good source of documentary evidence. He documented much of what happened in DC, and is documenting the on-going attacks in PA. cheers, LP
Yeow! I just checked out the "Virtue" site you linked, and it makes OUR listserve community look like a veritable love feast of mutual charity, respect and tolerance! Speaking as one who has passionately defended the right of the "traditionalists" to worship according to conscience, and to be treated with perfect respect in the Communion, I’m nonetheless deeply offended and insulted by this guy’s flat-out contemptuous, ignorant and bigoted broadsides against gay Christians in committed relationships. In fact, a lot of the "ugliness" I’m seeing at his site would be a test of my own faith in the continuing Christian viability of the Anglican Rite — were it not for the fact (which you and I have discussed privately) that my supernatural faith is based even more securely on "things seen" than it is on "things unseen". But this "Virtue" character is really quite a choking mouthful to swallow. Alas, Bennison is an even bigger "choker", from all the accounts in all the sources. Even arch-liberal (or "arch-fiend"?!) Griswold has a big problem with the guy’s high-handedness. The fact that I happen personally to agree with Bennison’s affirmation of gay Christians does not even begin to compensate for his bullying arrogance in dealing with the diversity of legitimate Anglican Christian belief and practice in his diocese. I’m afraid I tend to agree with your frighteningly dire assessment of the very venal "dirty politics" of money, land and property in the U.S. Church, LP. So NOW what do we do? I might suggest a salutary reading of Andrew Harvey, who urges us to "put no faith or credit in failed human institutions", but to cultivate a strong inner contemplative practice, based on a prayerful reading of the great mystics, saints, teachers and doctors of the Church. In darkening times like these, it certainly can’t hurt to do so. http://www.andrewharvey.net
Response:
Yeow! I just checked out the "Virtue" site you linked, and it makes OUR listserve community look like a veritable love feast of mutual charity, respect and tolerance! Speaking as one who has passionately defended the right of the "traditionalists" to worship according to conscience, and to be treated with perfect respect in the Communion, I’m nonetheless deeply offended and insulted by this guy’s flat-out contemptuous, ignorant and bigoted broadsides against gay Christians in committed relationships. In fact, a lot of the "ugliness" I’m
Yeah — like I said, his editorials tend to be a very aggressive defence of one particular point of view. I dare say even those sympathetic with some of his views can find the insulting vehemence with which he sometimes presents them disturbing. What I think is of more value in his posts, however, are the various news blurbs and documents. He’s put up stuff like newspaper articles, letters from vestries to bishops, letters between bishops, transcripts of ACC conferences, etc… — all of which stuff serves as useful objective documentation. Alas, Bennison is an even bigger "choker", from all the accounts in all the sources. Even arch-liberal (or "arch-fiend"?!) Griswold has a big problem with the guy’s high-handedness. The fact that I happen personally to agree with Bennison’s affirmation of gay Christians does not even begin to compensate for his bullying arrogance in dealing with the diversity of legitimate Anglican Christian belief and practice in his diocese. I’m afraid I tend to agree with your frighteningly dire assessment of the very venal "dirty politics" of money, land and property in the U.S. Church, LP.
Yes, once one has the facts, it’s hard to avoid a dire assessment, at least for those diocese. I suspect that our fellow-poster Zephon wouldn’t be quite so quick to condemn me as irrationally cynical if he had a better idea of what’s going on in PA. So NOW what do we do? I might suggest a salutary reading of Andrew Harvey, who urges us to "put no faith or credit in failed human institutions", but to cultivate a strong inner contemplative practice,
But, of course, the Church isn’t *merely* a human institution — but, like Her Spouse, is both human and divine. I don’t see how giving up on the church can even be an option of Christians. cheers, LP
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – <snip Besides, I don’t think the revisionist bishops have any desire to be pastors to the orthodox or anglo-catholics in their fold. I think they’ve written them off as undesireable and undesired, have decided the schism is inevitable (so what does it matter if their actions aggravate the situation) — and accordingly, far from being a shepherd, are actively throwing those members of their flocks to the legal and fiduciary wolves. <snip . . . all indications are that the bishops are commited to their intolerant revisionism, that they’ve decided that the bloodshed is unavoidable, and so they see no reason to refrain from shedding the orthodox’ blood. Yeah, it sounds cynical.
Sure does. I really don’t understand how you can slander good Christian bishops that way and project your cynicism onto them. Zephon
Response:
Yeah, it sounds cynical. Sure does. I really don’t understand how you can slander good Christian bishops that way and project your cynicism onto them.
Well, here I was speaking of Dixon & Bennison. And yeah, I wouldn’t call them good Christian bishops, and stand by that characterization. You’ll notice that I *praised* bishop Duncan, even though I don’t agree with all his theology. cheers, LP
Response:
Only time for partial answers/thoughts/reflections at the moment. Also, this same issue is showing up in the development of the "love the sinner, hate the sin" thread. b). Since your scholarship is more "fingertip" than mine, let me simply ask: WHICH of the "specifically & explicitly retained [Jewish] teachings on sexual morality" were affirmed by the Council of Jerusalem?
This is worth a thorough answer; I’ll have to dig through some notes, papers and books to retrieve it all. Quick answer: the most straight-forward, non-tangentious interpretation is that it included rules against adultery, homosexuality, incest, bestiality, fornication — in other words, the Levitical code on "sexual morality" given in both Lev 18 and Lev 20. Did the Council of Jerusalem explicitly reference — let alone condemn — faithfully-bonded homosexual unions? I truly doubt it.
As everyone at the council understood what was meant by ‘porneia’ (the Gk word used in Acts 15), being familiar with the Levitical law, they hardly needed to itemize it — to our loss! -lol- Given that then-common understanding, and the absence of ‘court stenographers’ (although Acts 15 preserves a fairly detailed summary of the councils’ proceedings as well as the letter stating its conclusions which was circulated to the churches), the next logical step is to look at what the apostles subsequently taught about sexual conduct, to give hints as to what was understood by the ruling. And, voila, you’ve got Paul & Jude clearly including homosexual acts among those prohibited; both using the word ‘porneia’ to include the different items in the Levitical law, including homosexual acts. (Of course, the response to this fact is to come up with tangential readings of the words and passages, to try explain away this meaning, but I’m always a bit suspicious of tangential readings when the plain reading — even if uncomfortable or inconvenient — makes sense.) marriage)? Sorry, but even the orthodox Roman Catholic Church, until very late in its history, CONDONED this practice between courting/engaged couples — since, under the principle of "double effect", the verification of their ability to produce children was held to be "the greater good", which was served by having a couple confirm their fertility through getting an initial pregnancy in progress, prior to the sacramentalization of the marriage. All of
My understanding of medieval law on marriage was that a marriage was made valid by (a) exchange of vows and (b) sex. Ideally, (a) happened in the marriage service and (b) happened after. However, if vows & sex happened beforehand, outside the church, the church ceremony was then the recognition of that already-existing marriage. I’ve never heard of the Church teaching that having sex ought to precede marriage, or that the Church ever taught that a couple which had fulfilled (a) and (b) above *shouldn’t* be married. But, of course, I’ve not done an exhaustive study of history, theology, or canon law on the subject — do you have some references as to where you ran across the teaching you describe? In fact, the late Dr. John Boswell of Yale University authored a spectacular piece of ecclesiastical scholarship, which actually unearthed the texts of liturgical blessings of same-sex unions in the Roman Rite, taking place as late as the Renaissance! It’s not clear if
Sadly, Dr. Boswell, for whom I have a great deal of admiration (having taken some of his classes as an undergrad) clearly let his personal agenda replace his scholarship in that work. Unlike much of his earlier work, that book is riddled with faulty translations, unwarrented assumptions, and, frankly, shabby scholarship. It has become popular to cite that book and its conclusions, because, after all, it was written by a (oooo) "professor at *Yale*" and supports the trendy agenda. But professors can be intellectually dishonest too — they’re just better at getting away with it! And the constant references to Boswell’s book — despite the fact that it is shabby and inaccurate scholarship — is a case in point. An excellent, albeit necessarily abbreivated, review of the book by a female Roman catholic historian (with whom I’ve also taken classes, and who is most impressive) can be found at: http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9411/articles/darling.html a). If contemporary Papal (or Episcopal) Councils are not inherently "infallible" (as we Anglicans agree that they are not), than the Council of Jerusalem, being just such a Council, was not inherently "infallible" either. Of course I hasten to add that it gave us a very precious insight into the mind and heart of the proto-Church, at a point still very close (temporally) to the Church’s origination. But there’s the due caveat: its declarations were a snapshot of the way the Church "understood itself", in that moment, in that culture, in that given set of very early and emergent circumstances.
There are subtle assumptions behind the "oh, that was just their culture" argument that are worth pointing out. This argument supposes that Christ’s message and meaning were distorted by the surrounding culture — even, in its extremes, that Christ himself was distorted, and didn’t *really* say what God meant. I think we can dismiss that latter as Arianism or worse — as if Christ were a mere human prophet, unable to know or say what God intended. But the former, that His meaning was distorted by the culturally-limited apostles, also is dismissive of the power of God. For it assumes that God did not find a place in history where His message would be clear. It assumes that the Holy Spirit did not have the power to lead the early church into the fullness of truth, as Christ promised. But think: what was the whole "end point" of God’s progressive revelation of Himself to the Jews, the Chosen People? Why, to create a people and culture among whom He would send His Son, the Messiah. God, throughout history, was shaping the Jewish people to be the locus for the revelation of Himself in Christ. Is God so powerless as to have been unable, through his prophets, to guide His people? Is He so weak that he was forced to send His Son at an unsuitable time? Or was the incarnation, after all, in the fullness of time? Moreover, was the Holy Spirit so powerless as to let the early church get "out of control"? To subordinate its teachings to the surrounding culture? But the early church *didn’t* do this — indeed, it set itself up in sharp contradistinction to the culture around it, one of the reasons that Christians were persecuted for the first 300 years of the Church’s existence. Now, *how* the church communicated its message, obviously, was shaped by the cultures to which it was communicating. Greek, the ‘lingua franca’ of the 1st century mediterranean world, became the language of the NT. Etc. But when you start saying that the message *itself* was limited/shaped/perverted by the contemporary culture, you run the real risk of doubting the power of God Himself. As if He weren’t able to communicate His message, and it’s only with the help of post-modern revisionist theologians that the *real* message, after 2000 years, is finally getting out. As if *our* culture is the privileged one which has all the answers, and none of the distortions, to allow Christ’s message truly to be heard. Frankly, if that were the case, wouldn’t God have send His Son to be a 21st century American, rather than a 1st century Palestinian Jew? Indeed, it is in part this very assumption which, I think, has led so many, who want to do away with any part of the Christian message which is incompatible with 21st century first-world secular culture, to ‘revise’ away the divinity of Christ Himself. Not what you intend, I’m sure — but it’s worth pointing out the assumptions and implications behind the "oh, it was just their culture" argument. cheers, LP
Response:
Even in the event that a parish is willing to leave everything behind to start a "new" parish (abandon everything and follow me, kind of has a familiar ring, doesn’t it??)
Exactly what Rev. Phil Lyman and the parish of St. John’s Huntingdon Valley, PA did. http://www.toknowchrist.org , the "secession" of a significant number of parishes from a diocese will ultimately effect the bishop’s ability to raise operating funds and have a long term impact on his/her political power within ECUSA. Any bishop worth their seat will do all in their power to prevent a schism and the creation of a new synod.
The new synods actually exist. There’s the AMiA, for example, which is functionally a second synod in the US. There’s even the nucleus of the "Traditional Anglican" communion, as opposed to the "Canturbury Anglican" communion in the US in the continuing church movements. It’s smaller now (though I believe the Anglican Province of Christ the King [http://www.anglicanpck.org], the largest of the continuing church groups, has as many or more parishes than the AMiA.. I’m not sure), but it’s growing. (E.g., the last stats I heard were that PECUSA is shrinking by 33% every decade while the APCK, for example, is growing by 20% every 5 years. Where will we be in a century? you do the math…) As Dana puts it, Interesting points, Mark…which, sadly, have a ring of "real world truth" about them. But I’m particularly taken by your statement: "Any bishop worth their seat will do all in their power to prevent a schism and the creation of a new synod." Do you mean "prevent" by adopting brutal, impositional, strong-arm, quasi-authoritarian tactics and means? Or do you mean "prevent" by becoming much more sensitive and conciliatory and respectful PASTORS to their diverse parishes?
I.e., they can now do one of two things: (a) Leave political & theological space for the orthodox in their dioceses. Or (b) Try to grab as much of the orthodox’ land, facilites and money as possible. Now, (a) is the impression that the various vague non-binding resolutions which are passed at Lambeth or whatnot try to present. It’s how PECUSA keeps trying to present itself to the Anglican communion as a whole. (Which would have worked better 100 years ago, or even 20, when there were fewer ways of the news "getting out". Heck, would any bishop in Africa, or even England, have heard of the goings-on in PA before all was said and done without the internet or fax machines etc?) But (b) is what they are in *fact* doing. And the result, as we saw in DC and as we’re seeing in PA, is that the "pushed and shoved" parishes (and parishoners) to react to brutally insensitive strong-arming and bullying by their diocesan bishop? They’re going to seek to "bolt" from his or her control, by any available legal or ecclesiastical means at their disposal. It’s the perfectly human reaction to a (probably justified) feeling of being oppressed. And, yes, it could get mighty bloody, if secular court fights for control of property ensue.
So yeah, the parishes bolt; or fight and then bold; or fight and then die. With the result, indeed, that the bishop gains whatever balance is left — either a smaller, exhausted parish or the sale or rent of the now empty church and property, minus the legal fees; with a loss of parishoners; and with a loss of face. The DC diocese, I’ve heard (though 2nd hand), spent so much money on legal fees that it’s nearly broke — and all they accomplished was finally to send Fr. Edwards into one of the continuing churches (Anglican Province of Christ the King again) and to have to agree to let the parish appoint *another* traditionalist priest (to avoid more litigation). Dixon *really* botched that one. Bennison, in PA, is being more systematic — he’s clearly after money, lands and buildings, and is still in the progress of targetting one parish after another. St. John’s was one of the first, Good Shepherd is all the rage now, but he’s now started attacks on St. James the Less and on All Saints’ Wynnewood. Of course, not all PECUSA bishops approve of these goings-on, as the courageous actions of Bp. Duncan prove. (Though it’s hard to tell, yet, if that’s going to make any difference to Bennison — so far all it’s done is generate a typically wishy-washy and vague ruling which Bennison has said he plans to ignore.) I think the majority of bishops are taking the quieter and more politic approach of simply waiting for the orthodox priest to retire and then presenting the parishes with no candidates but revisionists. After all, the PECUSA seminaries are in the hands of the revisionists, and there *is* no next generation in PECUSA to pick up the standard of orthodoxy after the generation of Lyman, Edwards and Moyer pass. But the cases of Dixon & Bennison (and whoever is next) beg the question — why? Frankly, I think it’s because they know that their revisionist theology is ultimately incompatible with orthodox theology. They know that there is no compromise short of schism, and that the schism is coming. And, since they are not willing to change their views, and since they know that the commited orthodox will ultimately leave anyway, they’re eager to consolidate as much money and power for themselves as they can. If this drives away priests and parishoners, so what — those people were going to leave anyway. They can shed crocodile tears over it for a press (and the press is often so theologically — indeed, so religiously, uninformed that it can’t understand the issues anyway), and push on with their policies of aggressive conquest. (Exactly what Bennison is doing in PA.) Given the bad publicity and the legal costs entailled, I expect this approach is fairly short sighted… that the "just let them die off" approach is more cost-effective. But it may well be that, seeing the worldwide schism coming down the pike, they want to have as much property & money in their hands, and deny as much of the same to their orthodox opponents, as quickly as possible. As Dana says, there is simply NO GOOD PASTORAL REASON for the diocesan bishop to declare, "No, I’m your bishop, and you do it my way, and you do what I say, and I’m going to assert my ‘lordly right’ to impose myself on you, whether you like it or not, whether you like ME or not". That,
No good pastoral reason, no — but perhaps good political and financial reasons. Besides, I don’t think the revisionist bishops have any desire to be pastors to the orthodox or anglo-catholics in their fold. I think they’ve written them off as undesireable and undesired, have decided the schism is inevitable (so what does it matter if their actions aggravate the situation) — and accordingly, far from being a shepherd, are actively throwing those members of their flocks to the legal and fiduciary wolves. a) a true pastoral change of heart, and change of attitude, on the part of some arrogant ECUSA bishops who have been "pushing and shoving" their traditonalist congregations, needs to be tried first. Short of THAT episcopal metanoia, nothing but bloodshed is predictable.
You’re quite right. However, all indications are that the bishops are commited to their intolerant revisionism, that they’ve decided that the bloodshed is unavoidable, and so they see no reason to refrain from shedding the orthodox’ blood. Yeah, it sounds cynical. Unfortunately, it isn’t. Having been following the news in PECUSA for some years now, I’m afraid that’s simply the clearest and most logical explanation to what’s going on. I wish it weren’t. If you’re interested in following such events, there’s a listserv news service at http://www.orthodoxanglican.org/virtuosity. The journalist who puts the news together is a traditionalist evangelical, and his editorials are often fairly one-sided and ‘prickly’ (I sometimes just skip over his [often quite entertaining] harangues), but it’s still a good source of news and facts, and he’ll often include the text of various PECUSA announcements, transcripts of meetings, public letters between bishops, letters of vestries to bishops, etc. So, no matter what your position or beliefs, its a good source of documentary evidence. He documented much of what happened in DC, and is documenting the on-going attacks in PA. cheers, LP
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I dare say it remains to be seen what happens in Anglicanism over the next decades. As we’ve had occasion to observe, Canturbury is *not* Rome. Accordingly, the development of "Old Anglicans" may not be at all like the development of "Old Catholics". What if, for instance, things finally reach the breaking point, and the African and Asian Anglican churches sever ties with Canturbury in a desire to remain faithful to traditional Anglicanism? What if they follow the Rwandan lead and recognize AMiA or the continuing churches in the US as the American Anglicans with whom they’re in fellowship, rather than PECUSA? What if the split comes and the Traditional Anglicans have *more* people and churches than the Canturbury Anglicans? After all, the *majority* of Anglicans in this world are in Asia and Africa, and have much more in common with bishops Roger and Murphy in the AMiA — and even *more* in common with archbishop Morse of the Anglican Province of Christ the King — than they do with folks like Bennison or Dixon or Spong.
I think it’s entirely plausible that, globally, the evangelical/traditional/tending-to-be-Biblical-literalists hold the greater numbers in Africa and Asia; while exactly the reverse is true in North America and Europe. Even if a global denominational split turned out to be 70/30 — no matter in which direction the split actually fell — both "synods" (or whatever they were called) would be robust and viable. What happens if an institutional reorganization actually occurs along *theological* lines? Then the "Traditional Anglicans" would way outnuber the "Canturbury Anglicans" — admittedly, a fact that’s easy to overlook from our limited US or Canadian perspectives, where the revisionists generally outnumber the orthodox.
Again, my above comment pertains: I certainly don’t doubt the "split" would be asymmetrical (rather than 50/50), but both "synods" should be robust enough to be healthy and viable. North America and Europe do not lack for "liberal" Anglicans, to put it mildly! I agree that if the issue were only issues about sex, the whole fuss would seem out of proprotion and a bit silly. But that’s just the straw that’s breaking the camels back. The *real* problem is the *bales* of straw that are already stacked thereon. The underlying problems are much larger and more serious issues about Scriptural interpretation, the authority of tradition, the relation of 21st century first-world cultural mindset to the history of the Church, etc.
Yeah, and we’ve been "agreeing to disagree" about Scriptural interpretation, the "due weight" given to tradition, and the first-world/third-world "culture wars" for at least a half-century now. Thus far, our disagreements have been manageable; and, as a stellar example (already mentioned elsewhere), our high-powered Scriptural scholars have graciously left room at the PASTORAL level for those who prefer to read the KJV, literally, word-for-word, as their principal spiritual nourishment. Nobody says to these people: "Your reading of the Bible is no longer supported by our state-of-the-art deconstructionist scholarship; therefore, you MUST CHANGE your way of reading the Bible!" There is a very substantial doctrinal difference existing between the camps — but "the horrible" simply has not happened because of it. In the end, I do think it’s the dual issues of female ordination and changing contemporary sexual mores which have FINALLY shattered our cordial (Protestant) accommodationist climate — which was able to "handle" different ways of reading the Bible, and different levels of "formal acceptance" of episcopal authority. The homosexual issue is getting lots of play (so to speak) because it’s deeply personal enough to get everyone all worked up (so to speak). But it wouldn’t be causing all the trouble it is if it weren’t that it is an occasion to express the deeper and more *substantial* divisions on issues more fundamental than aspects of sexual moral theology.
Well, sexuality certainly quickens underlying questions of "Scriptural authority" (how seriously DO we take Leviticus?), and a purported "ecclesiastical authority" to make BINDING (as opposed to "opinionated and advisory") moral pronouncements. Anglicans broke from Rome, in part, over the question of the Pope’s presumption to make "binding moral pronouncements". We believe NO ONE MAN legitimately holds such univocal sovereign authority. We believe his claim to hold it is a usurpation of the right of discernment which belongs to the Christian Church as a whole, and which belongs ultimately — if push comes to shove — to the individual, properly informed conscience. Heck, sort of the same way that Anglicanism started. It wasn’t, after all, just because Henry VIII wanted a divorce, the way the Romans dismiss us. There were far more substantial considerations, divisions & circumstances at play, for which H8 simply provided the occasion.
Q.E.D., super! We quite agree! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – So often I hear people argue, re the OT, "well, we don’t observe Jewish laws X, Y, and Z, therefore none of them apply." This is far too facile. [To quote Monty Python: and it makes me verrry iiiiiiiiiiritated, because it is *not* *logical* :- ]. The very first church council, run by the apostles themselves, already addressed the application of Mosaic law to Christianity and ruled, as recorded in Acts, which parts retained force under the New Covenant. Contemporary rhetoric, which picks out the most culturally alien elements of Levitical law & practice, or of Jewish history, and then uses them to argue that *none* of that law or practice is binding, is arguing in the teeth of the apostles themselves. The discussion of Levitical law has to focus on the council of Jerusalem, and the fact that the apostles, while rejecting much of Jewish practice, specificly & explicitly retained the teachings on sexual morality.
LP, your scholarly erudition on church matters never fails to amaze…although since you’re a graduate student in history, I suppose I should expect it, and in fact would expect nothing less! Two brief points: a). If contemporary Papal (or Episcopal) Councils are not inherently "infallible" (as we Anglicans agree that they are not), than the Council of Jerusalem, being just such a Council, was not inherently "infallible" either. Of course I hasten to add that it gave us a very precious insight into the mind and heart of the proto-Church, at a point still very close (temporally) to the Church’s origination. But there’s the due caveat: its declarations were a snapshot of the way the Church "understood itself", in that moment, in that culture, in that given set of very early and emergent circumstances. b). Since your scholarship is more "fingertip" than mine, let me simply ask: WHICH of the "specifically & explicitly retained [Jewish] teachings on sexual morality" were affirmed by the Council of Jerusalem? Condemnation of adultery? Liberal and conservative Anglicans agree that adultery without strong extenuating circumstance is, technically, "sinful". Condemnation of wanton, self-serving sexual promiscuity? Again, liberal and conservative Anglicans agree that such behavior "falls short of the dignity of Christ’s call to us" in a basically "sinful" way. Condemnation of "fornication" (sexual intercourse between two unmarried partners, outside of bonded marriage)? Sorry, but even the orthodox Roman Catholic Church, until very late in its history, CONDONED this practice between courting/engaged couples — since, under the principle of "double effect", the verification of their ability to produce children was held to be "the greater good", which was served by having a couple confirm their fertility through getting an initial pregnancy in progress, prior to the sacramentalization of the marriage. All of which demonstrates the most fundamental point: sexual mores and customs are inherently variable and mutable, even within "the historical thinking of the Church". Did the Council of Jerusalem explicitly reference — let alone condemn — faithfully-bonded homosexual unions? I truly doubt it. Without having seen a reliable scholarly transcript of the proceedings (if one even exists), the most I can imagine is that "intemperate lust of one man for another, or for a beast" might have been referenced, echoing Leviticus. But this is already well-encompassed under (what we’ve loosely termed) "wanton and self-serving sexual promiscuity", is it not? Sexual promiscuity is neither hetero-specific or homo-specific. But neither does a faithfully bonded relationship — of either gender preference — constitute sexual promiscuity. They are two very different moral phenomena. In fact, the late Dr. John Boswell of Yale University authored a spectacular piece of ecclesiastical scholarship, which actually unearthed the texts of liturgical blessings of same-sex unions in the Roman Rite, taking place as late as the Renaissance! It’s not clear if these same-sex unions were considered "sacramental marriages" in the technical sense. What is perfectly clear is that their official "blessing" (in at least a broad sense) was permitted, and a liturgy was provided for the occasion. This practice, documented to have occurred over a fairly long period in the Roman Catholic Church (from which we derive our own Anglican Orders), casts strong doubt on the moral validity of the anti-gay rants of the Leviticus-thumping fundies. Sexual mores and customs change, within the broad rubric of our Christian agreement that fundamentally selfish and abusive uses of our sexuality — uses which violate caritas, break sacramental bonds, ignore the "highest good of the other", and betray a contempt for the … read more »
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – So, this may be the charitable solution, but I dare say that realpolitik precludes it…. cheers, LP Unfortunately you’re right. Realpolitik (read power and money) makes it impossible for ECUSA to accept splitting into two parts. Most dioceses are already desperate for financial resources and have taken increasingly strong measures to make sure that they not only receive "revenue" from parishes, but ulitmately have title and control over all property within the diocese. For any diocesan bishop to allow a parish to "secede" from the current diocese to join a new synod would be an unthinkable heresy. (Probably worse than questioning the creed, resurrection, or the virgin birth (grin)). At the same time, when the majority of a parish desire to leave the current episcopal relationship, they have the strange feeling that the property, plant and equipment that they have been using and maintaining for many years (forget about the endowment funds, which in many cases are already directly controlled by the the diocesan trustees) ought to go along with them to the "new" parish. After all, why should they have to start over again from scratch. Even in the event that a parish is willing to leave everything behind to start a "new" parish (abandon everything and follow me, kind of has a familiar ring, doesn’t it??), the "secession" of a significant number of parishes from a diocese will ultimately effect the bishop’s ability to raise operating funds and have a long term impact on his/her political power within ECUSA. Any bishop worth their seat will do all in their power to prevent a schism and the creation of a new synod.
Interesting points, Mark…which, sadly, have a ring of "real world truth" about them. But I’m particularly taken by your statement: "Any bishop worth their seat will do all in their power to prevent a schism and the creation of a new synod." Do you mean "prevent" by adopting brutal, impositional, strong-arm, quasi-authoritarian tactics and means? Or do you mean "prevent" by becoming much more sensitive and conciliatory and respectful PASTORS to their diverse parishes? If the former, how would we expect the "pushed and shoved" parishes (and parishoners) to react to brutally insensitive strong-arming and bullying by their diocesan bishop? They’re going to seek to "bolt" from his or her control, by any available legal or ecclesiastical means at their disposal. It’s the perfectly human reaction to a (probably justified) feeling of being oppressed. And, yes, it could get mighty bloody, if secular court fights for control of property ensue. In fact, I believe a number of ECUSA diocesan bishops HAVE behaved in such an arrogant and bullying way toward their traditionalist parishes. We all know chapter-and-verse of the damage done. It is precisely this sort of insupportable (and unseemly and unChristian) episcopal arrogance which is fueling the perceived NEED for "schism" or "bifurcation of synods" in the first place. If the bishops, even for material/temporal/property-control reasons, wish to "do all in their power to prevent a schism and the creation of a new synod", they are going to need to drop their high-powered "human egos" (which have been so atrociously displayed in the recent Edwards and Moyer flaps), and become much more humble and conciliatory and respectful and open and listening PASTORS to their diverse congregations. If a traditionalist parish wishes to invite a more conservative bishop to adopt them, and a conservative bishop is more than willing to mentor them, there is simply NO GOOD PASTORAL REASON for the diocesan bishop to declare, "No, I’m your bishop, and you do it my way, and you do what I say, and I’m going to assert my ‘lordly right’ to impose myself on you, whether you like it or not, whether you like ME or not". That, surely, is just as incendiary a prescription for an Episcopal schism as the similar behavior of the British crown overlords was a prescription for the American Revolution. The dynamic of "perceived colonization" on the part of those whose views are being scorned is quite similar. Yes, even a sensitive, conciliatory and humble pastoral bishop might still be moved to tell the traditionalist parishes: "Fine, I’ll leave you alone, and you can have your invited conservative bishop as a parish mentor, as long as you continue to pay your dues to MY diocese, and let me retain control of the existing property!" Would that be a satisfactory compromise? Who knows. I suspect it would split the parish right down the middle, and would accomplish little or nothing to solve the underlying problem in the long run. While it may make some sense for all of the reasons discussed in this thread, I doubt that any of us will see it as a reality in our lifetimes. The split, when it comes, will be painful and difficult. The peaceful creation of two synods just isn’t possible.
No doubt it will be painful and difficult. My final points are that: a) a true pastoral change of heart, and change of attitude, on the part of some arrogant ECUSA bishops who have been "pushing and shoving" their traditonalist congregations, needs to be tried first. Short of THAT episcopal metanoia, nothing but bloodshed is predictable. b) "Painful and difficult", yes. But I increasingly view things the way my friend LP views them: perhaps the decentralization of the global "Anglican Communion" into many smaller "affinity groups", which get along peacefully and harmoniously within their own communities, while maintaining at least a formal civility and Christian charity (non-hatefulness) toward the other Anglican "affinity groups", is the best that the Holy Spirit can "do for us", in these degenerating planetary times.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – from under" the ECUSA denomination which is driving them nuts, and would allow them to make themselves answerable only to Christ and Canterbury. Which is perfectly fine with me, if it’s perfectly fine with them. I think perhaps you over-estimate the difficulties and *There’s* the difference — the orthodox (increasingly at any rate) don’t *want* to be answerable to Canturbury. In which case, of course, they’re no longer formal participants in the Anglican Rite…they’re a rump or splinter Church, just like the small "Old Catholic" Churches in various European countries, which have Apostolic Orders in an unbroken transmission, but which have also completely severed themselves from Rome and the Papacy. I really have
I dare say it remains to be seen what happens in Anglicanism over the next decades. As we’ve had occasion to observe, Canturbury is *not* Rome. Accordingly, the development of "Old Anglicans" may not be at all like the development of "Old Catholics". What if, for instance, things finally reach the breaking point, and the African and Asian Anglican churches sever ties with Canturbury in a desire to remain faithful to traditional Anglicanism? What if they follow the Rwandan lead and recognize AMiA or the continuing churches in the US as the American Anglicans with whom they’re in fellowship, rather than PECUSA? What if the split comes and the Traditional Anglicans have *more* people and churches than the Canturbury Anglicans? After all, the *majority* of Anglicans in this world are in Asia and Africa, and have much more in common with bishops Roger and Murphy in the AMiA — and even *more* in common with archbishop Morse of the Anglican Province of Christ the King — than they do with folks like Bennison or Dixon or Spong. What happens if an institutional reorganization actually occurs along *theological* lines? Then the "Traditional Anglicans" would way outnuber the "Canturbury Anglicans" — admittedly, a fact that’s easy to overlook from our limited US or Canadian perspectives, where the revisionists generally outnumber the orthodox. "progressive" camps. I mean, how crazy is this, anyway? We can’t "agree to disagree" on a very few minor points of sexual culture and custom, without blowing the whole denomination apart? Good Lord. (And
I agree that if the issue were only issues about sex, the whole fuss would seem out of proprotion and a bit silly. But that’s just the straw that’s breaking the camels back. The *real* problem is the *bales* of straw that are already stacked thereon. The underlying problems are much larger and more serious issues about Scriptural interpretation, the authority of tradition, the relation of 21st century first-world cultural mindset to the history of the Church, etc. The homosexual issue is getting lots of play (so to speak) because it’s deeply personal enough to get everyone all worked up (so to speak). But it wouldn’t be causing all the trouble it is if it weren’t that it is an occasion to express the deeper and more *substantial* divisions on issues more fundamental than aspects of sexual moral theology. Heck, sort of the same way that Anglicanism started. It wasn’t, after all, just because Henry VIII wanted a divorce, the way the Romans dismiss us. There were far more substantial considerations, divisions & circumstances at play, for which H8 simply provided the occasion. whatever DID happen to the question of "OT patriarchal polygamy" anyway? Whoever said that the acceptable definition of sexual culture and custom was immutably "writ in stone" by the finger of God?)
So often I hear people argue, re the OT, "well, we don’t observe Jewish laws X, Y, and Z, therefore none of them apply." This is far too facile. [To quote Monty Python: and it makes me verrry iiiiiiiiiiritated, because it is *not* *logical* :- ]. The very first church council, run by the apostles themselves, already addressed the application of Mosaic law to Christianity and ruled, as recorded in Acts, which parts retained force under the New Covenant. Contemporary rhetoric, which picks out the most culturally alien elements of Levitical law & practice, or of Jewish history, and then uses them to argue that *none* of that law or practice is binding, is arguing in the teeth of the apostles themselves. The discussion of Levitical law has to focus on the council of Jerusalem, and the fact that the apostles, while rejecting much of Jewish practice, specificly & explicitly retained the teachings on sexual morality. But I’ll admit, when the rhetoric starts flying, it’s much more fun to pick out the crazier bits of Levitical law and avoid this more subtle point! Hope your over the flu!
Thanks; just about. Enough sleep tonight and I might be functional tomorrow! (The best part of which, no doubt, is that I’ll have to shut up a bit here and get more back to other work!) cheerio, LP
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – snip Our next task: convince the rest of the Church that we’ve got the problem solved! (Side bets will be taken on the precise date at which hell in fact freezes over!) Nope, won’t happen. PECUSA bishops don’t want to loose the property or income. (And what Bennison has been doing has basically been a land-and-money grab. Same thing happened at St. John’s Huntingdon Valley — heck, if I remember correctly, there the congregation raised *among themselves* $1.3 million, over the $1.1 mill which Bennison had agreed to sell them the property for, and then he renegged on them.) And things will have to get worse before the other national churches are willing to bite the bullet and officially recognize the material schism in the Anglican communion (though the AMiA is already a step in that direction.) So, this may be the charitable solution, but I dare say that realpolitik precludes it…. cheers, LP
Unfortunately you’re right. Realpolitik (read power and money)makes it impossible for ECUSA to accept splitting into two parts. Most dioceses are already desperate for financial resources and have taken increasingly strong measures to make sure that they not only receive "revenue" from parishes, but ulitmately have title and control over all property within the diocese. For any diocesan bishop to allow a parish to "secede" from the current diocese to join a new synod would be an unthinkable heresy. (Probably worse than questioning the creed, resurrection, or the virgin birth (grin)). At the same time, when the majority of a parish desire to leave the current episcopal relationship, they have the strange feeling that the property, plant and equipment that they have been using and maintaining for many years (forget about the endowment funds, which in many cases are already directly controlled by the the diocesan trustees) ought to go along with them to the "new" parish. After all, why should they have to start over again from scratch. Even in the event that a parish is willing to leave everything behind to start a "new" parish (abandon everything and follow me, kind of has a familiar ring, doesn’t it??), the "secession" of a significant number of parishes from a diocese will ultimately effect the bishop’s ability to raise operating funds and have a long term impact on his/her political power within ECUSA. Any bishop worth their seat will do all in their power to prevent a schism and the creation of a new synod. While it may make some sense for all of the reasons discussed in this thread, I doubt that any of us will see it as a reality in our lifetimes. The split, when it comes, will be painful and difficult. The peaceful creation of two synods just isn’t possible.
Response:
Good Morning, LP! (I have really got to take care of other pressing personal business for most of this week, so I’ll need to "bow out" for a while…but briefly:) from under" the ECUSA denomination which is driving them nuts, and would allow them to make themselves answerable only to Christ and Canterbury. Which is perfectly fine with me, if it’s perfectly fine with them. I think perhaps you over-estimate the difficulties and *There’s* the difference — the orthodox (increasingly at any rate) don’t *want* to be answerable to Canturbury.
In which case, of course, they’re no longer formal participants in the Anglican Rite…they’re a rump or splinter Church, just like the small "Old Catholic" Churches in various European countries, which have Apostolic Orders in an unbroken transmission, but which have also completely severed themselves from Rome and the Papacy. I really have no theological or sacramental problem with their existence. Perhaps being tiny and inconsequential enough to be left alone by the traditional denominational "war horses" is the secret to leading a peaceful Christian communitarian life. (It’s also interesting that Apostolic Bishops in a few of those small "Old Catholic Churches" have, since the late 19th Century, transfused the strength of the Anglican Lineage by participating as co-consecrators in the elevation of Anglican bishops and archbishops — which makes it rather difficult for the Vatican to continue to dispute a chain of Apostolic Succession in Anglican Orders!) So, yes, I do see AMiA, if it follows the path you suggest, basically becoming a tiny "Old Church" faction, which could no longer call itself properly "Anglican". It will become an independent "rump church" because it will have severed its relationship to the See of Canterbury, which is — be it strong or weak — still the recognized seat of the global Anglican Communion. The rump faction would become an "Old Anglican" church, quite directly comparable to an "Old Catholic" church — with an arguably valid lineage, but with no public impact or resonance or "strength in numbers", which both the Anglican and the RC denominations enjoy, by virtue of their global communions. Do you really believe the majority of traditionalist/conservative Anglicans would prefer to sever their bond with the formal (global) Anglican Communion? I suppose it’s an unanswered and so-far untested question. My personal sense of the matter is, "No". But obviously, this is an inquiry which is ripe for some direct sociological polling research. Heck, at the moment, no one but the English Anglicans are answerable to Canturbury anyways — since he has no legal or institutional jurisdiction beyond.
Yeah, this is really the nub of the problem. If the head of a major denomination commands TOO MUCH authoritarian power, and repeatedly uses it unwisely and non-consultatively, he becomes a crypto-tyrant. (I think we know whereof we speak here.) But if the head of a denomination is MERELY a figurehead (like the ceremonial president, as opposed to the Prime Minister, in some parliamentary democracies), he becomes a "toothless tiger", and something of a laughing stock. Frankly, I think the practical, present and acknowledged role of the AoC falls somewhere in between these two extremes. People (Anglican people, at least) do generally honor him and respect him, and look to him for practical institutional and spiritual leadership — while they also respect him for not being imperially high-handed and authoritarian in a Papal mode. It’s a tough balancing act. But the fact that the present AoC was, in the end, able to definitively "disallow" the attempted episcopal consecrations of Frs. Rodgers and Murphy really counted for something. He put them on notice that, if all parties still proceeded to present themselves as "Anglican bishops" in spite of his warning, they would be effectively detaching themselves (and their "followers") as a "splinter church", or an "Old Anglican" faction, which could not legitimately claim to be part of the global Anglican Communion, centered in Canterbury. Would that "severance" from global Anglicanism bother the traditionalist/conservative "rebels"? Who knows. This was the point we pondered above. I’m sure they’d continue to call themselves "true Anglicans", just as the "Old Catholics" continue to call themselves "true Catholics", although they are not acknowledged as being "in communion" by the global RC denomination. Increasingly, I take your point, LP: perhaps we ARE coming to a situation in which this extreme factionalization among Anglican splinter groups, each one with arguable "lineage", but with no truly global constituency, will become the prevailing "micro-organizational" model for the continuation of Christian "affinity groups". I think we could live with it, on one level; but there would also be something sad and tragic about global Christianity "coming to this", when only a few decades ago, major ecumenical re-combinations were a looming promise. And, with England’s dominant theology slowly following down the path blazed by PECUSA’s increasing revisionism, I think there’ll be less and less desire among the orthodox to be associated with Canturbury in any way.
Again, I really, really, REALLY wonder about that! We’ve drilled down to a bedrock unanswered question. Serious field research is definitely needed to clarify the "mind and heart" of the traditionalist/conservatives, touching the point of their willingness to continue to define themselves as "Anglicans in communion with Canterbury". Maybe they WOULD be satisfied to become small rump "Old Anglican" churches, like Europe’s tiny "Old Catholic" churches. We simply don’t know the majoritarian state of their "mind and heart", at this point. The one thing appealing about association w/ Canturbury is the _history_ but, frankly, when push comes to shove, that’s a lesser concern.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. "Resonance in global numbers" certainly does count for something, in terms of getting your beliefs strongly "into play" in the planetary argument of values and ideas. When the Pope or the AoC speaks on behalf of his denomination, it makes headlines. When an "Old Catholic" primate of a rump church speaks, everybody snoozes. Maybe it’s better that way. Maybe not. Again: we simply don’t have the facts in hand to make a pronouncement about "preferability" among these options, or how the Anglican traditionalist/conservatives themselves would feel about the disempowerment of becoming "rumps". It would certainly give them a chance to "practice according to conscience"; but it would also mean that they would NOT be represented when the AoC spoke to the world as the head of the denomination. Perhaps they’d like it better NOT to have Archbishop Williams speaking for them! Entirely possible. But we simply don’t know, without the research. And this, basically, is the one main difference between our two solutions — you say "two different but geographically overlapping church groups, both answerable to Canturbury" — I’m suggesting two communions world-wide, one of the orthodox, one of the revisionists, with Canturbury in one camp or the other.
Boy, I would really, really, REALLY prefer it if we could all remain in "one broad communion", simply agreeing to disagree about the relatively trivial points of "our advancement in human understanding of human sexuality" over the last few centuries. Even moderately conservative Anglicans already, for the most part, accept medical contraception without reservation; don’t make a big deal out of teenage masturbation; and freely acknowledge sacramental remarriage after a previous divorce became necessary "for grave cause" — all of which positions are theological anathema to the Vatican. We all agree, liberals and conservatives alike, that "reckless, opportunistic, self-serving promiscuity" of either the homosexual or the heterosexual variety is at least "somewhat sinful" — a "falling short" of the ideals of mutual charity which Christ calls us to honor. And I think it’s fair to say that most of as are, quite frankly, prepared at least to "cut a little slack" in the "sinfulness" department for romantic intimacy when it’s shared by a courting couple who are moving toward what seems to be a seriously bonded relationship. Which gets us down to the possibility of such seriously bonded relationships existing, if not sacramentally, then at least non-sinfully, between same-sex couples. And THAT ONE ITEM is the "big whammy" which seems to kill off any possibility of shared moral vision and theological cooperation between the "conservative" and "progressive" camps. I mean, how crazy is this, anyway? We can’t "agree to disagree" on a very few minor points of sexual culture and custom, without blowing the whole denomination apart? Good Lord. (And whatever DID happen to the question of "OT patriarchal polygamy" anyway? Whoever said that the acceptable definition of sexual culture and custom was immutably "writ in stone" by the finger of God?) Heck, if we wind up with two different Anglican denominations worldwide, we’ll eventually wind up with *two* bishops of Canturbury, though whether Canturbury would be the archepiscopal see of both is a different question.
Well, we might eventually end up with a (legitimately ordained) traditionalist/conservative Primate or Patriarch (Matriarch?!) — but who knows where he/she would be seated. Probably "way down south" somewhere…although I’m being just a bit facetious. (Certainly not in New England!) So we’d have the Pope, the AoC, the Eastern Patriarchs, and the Anglican "Traditionalist Patriarch", all operating more … read more »
Response:
from under" the ECUSA denomination which is driving them nuts, and would allow them to make themselves answerable only to Christ and Canterbury. Which is perfectly fine with me, if it’s perfectly fine with them. I think perhaps you over-estimate the difficulties and
*There’s* the difference — the orthodox (increasingly at any rate) don’t *want* to be answerable to Canturbury. Heck, at the moment, no one but the English Anglicans are answerable to Canturbury anyways — since he has no legal or institutional jurisdiction beyond. And, with England’s dominant theology slowly following down the path blazed by PECUSA’s increasing revisionism, I think there’ll be less and less desire among the orthodox to be associated with Canturbury in any way. The one thing appealing about association w/ Canturbury is the _history_ but, frankly, when push comes to shove, that’s a lesser concern. And this, basically, is the one main difference between our two solutions — you say "two different but geographically overlapping church groups, both answerable to Canturbury" — I’m suggesting two communions world-wide, one of the orthodox, one of the revisionists, with Canturbury in one camp or the other. Heck, if we wind up with two different Anglican denominations worldwide, we’ll eventually wind up with *two* bishops of Canturbury, though whether Canturbury would be the archepiscopal see of both is a different question. Our next task: convince the rest of the Church that we’ve got the problem solved! (Side bets will be taken on the precise date at which hell in fact freezes over!)
Nope, won’t happen. PECUSA bishops don’t want to loose the property or income. (And what Bennison has been doing has basically been a land-and-money grab. Same thing happened at St. John’s Huntingdon Valley — heck, if I remember correctly, there the congregation raised *among themselves* $1.3 million, over the $1.1 mill which Bennison had agreed to sell them the property for, and then he renegged on them.) And things will have to get worse before the other national churches are willing to bite the bullet and officially recognize the material schism in the Anglican communion (though the AMiA is already a step in that direction.) So, this may be the charitable solution, but I dare say that realpolitik precludes it…. cheers, LP
Response:
http://orthodoxanglican.net/ http://www.acahome.org/tac/index.htm These groups aren’t Anglican. They’re former Anglicans plus converts.
And you could say the same of any future splits. In the event the de facto split in the actual Anglican Communion becomes de jure, which side would be ‘Anglican’? The First World liberals because they have the see of Canterbury or the Third World Christian group? Should the Third World group come up with a new name since it isn’t English?
I think you oversimplify, and the Cold War terminology is a bit pass
If you like this post and would like to receive updates from this blog, please subscribe our feed.