I have been reading the various communications from various conservatives—Ephraim Radner’s critique of the Network, Stephen Noll’s request for unity of action from the Network bishops, Matt Kennedy’s analysis of Canterbury, Dr. Radner’s resignation, and now the various comments from all conservatives on the blogs.
I see that we are all indulging in one of our favorite hobbies—debate and argument—and I now hasten to join the fray, while fully aware that there would be no real argument or debate if we did not all also acknowledge one another as people who believe the gospel of Jesus Christ. I wouldn’t give this the time of day if I didn’t know that Ephraim Radner and Bob Duncan were my brothers in the gospel of Christ.
Two Essays, Two Analyses: Ephraim Radner’s Thoughts
I’ll begin with a few thoughts about two opposing works, Ephraim Radner’s “The Common Cause of a Common Light” and Stephen Noll’s “An Open Letter to Network Bishops and Common Cause Partners.
As I read Dr. Radner’s piece, I was struck by two things—how much I agreed with its basic “Communion Conservative” principles and how little I agreed with some of his articulated theses.
It would probably be a good idea to again describe what Communion conservatives believe. Some of you have indicated a dislike for labels—but consider these labels to be merely “shorthand” for different groups who express their differences primarily in terms of tactics and strategy. Please know that I acknowledge that neither group is monolithic and that individuals reside more on a “pole” than at one point. Since I myself am a Communion conservative, though towards the middle of the spectrum [see—I’ve always said I’m really a moderate!] I will speak in terms of what I believe. Communion conservatives, in brief and in general [and certainly with some exceptions in detail], believe that after of course, the gospel, there needs to be a “center that holds” other than doctrine for Anglicanism to survive as a thriving, growing, orthodox, global non-congregational, bishop-led communion. Without such a center, I do not believe that Anglicanism will thrive or grow in the US, where it is already so weakened. In fact, the more one focuses on doctrine as a means of unity, the more one recognizes that doctrine is actually an instrument of division—and not necessarily in a “bad sense” but often in a clarifying sense. Once someone says “I think that Christ died for everybody that is ever to live”, another person always says “I don’t” . . . and the division promptly begins. Understand, I’m not opposed at all to a confessional document—I just don’t believe that a confessional document will hold us all together. Anglicanism was built around the hope of a “common worship,” prayer book liturgy, sacraments, bishops, the gospel, and much more—all of which is of course “doctrinal”. But unlike, for instance, the Presbyterians or the Puritans, it attempted to leave “blurry around the edges” those aspects of Christianity it considered secondary or unsettled and it also did not embrace the “regulative” principle of Calvin, but instead the “regulative” principle of Luther and Hooker. I do not think that it was an accident that the Presbyterians look to Calvin, and the Anglicans look to Cranmer. Very simplistically, Calvin’s work was that of the “analyst” or the “divider” and Cranmer’s work was that of the “synthesizer” or the “melder”.
And of course . . . that history in itself has led to the weaknesses that are confronting us today, which are different from the weaknesses that have confronted and are confronting Reformed Calvinists or Separatist Congregationalists. As a relative of mine has always stated “We are all doomed to live out our theology” and we are most certainly living out our theology in the Anglican Communion, majoring on our inherent weaknesses in this and the last century.
Communion conservatives, in short, believe that as long as is possible, we should not be separated from a historic see and heritage that have both admirably served as “instruments of unity” throughout our church history. We uneasily suspect that it is intrinsically and pragmatically necessary to a thriving Anglicanism. As long as is possible, we should seek reform and renewal and discipline through the Communion and not outside of it; only should the Communion itself fracture, will we move away from it.
I would also like to point out that Communion conservatives have not embraced wholeheartedly the emphasis on “Common Cause” found amongst the leadership of the Network. I can’t speak for all Communion conservatives, but I have two basic principles that have guided me with regards to many choices over the years.
One—a positive principle—is that mergers or business partnerships or marriages or any other relationship-intensifier should take place ideally amongst healthy, functional, strong individuals. I do not believe that to be the case with either the Episcopal Network nor the various Common Cause partners. The business [and relational] principle is that people and organizations should “get their own houses in order” before attempting to “spread themselves around” and intensify relationships. The orthodox within ECUSA are manifestly disordered, chaotic, confused, weak, muddled, and non-functional. The Common Cause partners each have their own histories that are sorely troubled, disunified, and sick—at least two of the partners have most certainly “not thrived”. And there are *theological* reasons for that “not thriving” that have yet to be worked through.
Secondly there is this “negative” principle. Those who have drunk poison—and as Episcopalians, even we traditionalists have done so—should not then go unify with others who have drunk a different poison. The two poisons do not “cancel one another out” but rather worsen both patients. The end is worse than the beginning.
In short, the Common Cause effort does two things that I think are quite damaging. The effort allows both parties a “distraction” from their own issues and shortcomings which have led to their “not-thriving” and allows them to focus on a happy and bright and shining future vision rather than the present concrete problems. And the effort obscures the very real differences between the two sides of Common Cause, which differences will most certainly leap out and display themselves at the first real opportunity.
I have already been on the record before with these thoughts. I believe that history will be very unkind to Common Cause, not because it was not a good idea, or thought, or vision . . . but because neither side had “done their own work” before attempting to reconcile their differences. We do not even have a coherent identity as traditional Episcopalians, so how we are to “unify” an incoherent and fractured identity with another is beyond me.
None of these very morose thoughts about Common Cause represent, I must add, my feelings for any number of members of other Anglican churches. I am thinking, for instance, of my friend in Greenwood, SC, building an alternate Anglican church that is not a part of Common Cause at all, and my ally in Louisville, KY, and that great bishop that I liked at the Mere Anglicanism conference in Charleston—and more.
Having spoken with any number of Communion conservatives about Common Cause, I believe that many if not most share these thoughts. And because we seem to be a bit quieter and less vociferous and boisterous in our articulations, let me say with feeling that we believe that both 1) a non-Canterbury-centered attempt at Anglicanism in the US and 2) unification with Common Cause partners at this time is likely to be disastrous.
I think I can’t be clearer than the above thoughts, although many many reasserting Episcopalians will disagree with me.
Yet with all of the agreement that I share with fellow Communion conservatives, there were numerous areas of Dr. Radner’s essay that I heartily disgreed with. I do not believe, as he said, that there has been undue “secrecy” in the communications from the Network about its intended goals and hopes. I, as a lay peon, can read the Network press releases and speeches just like anyone else, and it was clearly stated on the record at every event that I attended that the orthodox within ECUSA need a new province. These statements were reported constantly and then talked about, with varying opinions expressed about what kind of province, when, where, led by whom, and so on, and so on. In my opinion, there has probably been too little secrecy, not too much, and for either progressive Episcopalians or Communion conservative Episcopalians to complain of secrecy in regards to the Network’s goals and hopes only implies that they didn’t bother to read the ACN website.
I also do not agree that there needed to be more “conversation” amongst Network bishops or Network and Windsor bishops, or Network and Windsor and conservative-but-neither-Network-nor-Windsor bishops. The truth is that, as with the revisionist Episcopalians and the traditional Episcopalians, we all already know what the values and hopes and theologies of the varying groups are. I know good and well which Network bishops are “Federal conservatives” and which are “Communion conservatives”. I know which ones like Common Cause and which are uneasy. I know which dioceses feel the more threatened by the Episcopal church and which are pinning their hopes on a Communion-centered outcome. Ephraim Radner accuses some Network bishops of being “non-consultative” . . . but the truth is that they consulted, found out which ones disagreed with them, carefully considered their decisions . . . and decided to “move forward” and “move on”.
Moving on, after careful consideration of all views and strategies, is a function of integrity and coherent identity within the person or the organization. The Federal conservatives are very clear about what their stated goals, priorities, and values are. They have stated them over and over and over. And those goals and priorities and values are what they are heartily pursuing. I see no fault in that clear and public pursuit. And further consultation will not cause them to change their theology, or modify their goals and values.
Finally, Dr. Radner does not seem to acknowledge a crucial and publicly stated fact. The Federal conservatives have given up on the Anglican Communion. They do not believe in it anymore. It has failed Anglicanism, in their opinion.
Understand that I have not come to that conclusion yet—but they have. The instruments of communion have failed.
So the constant cry from we Communion conservatives to wait on the Anglican Communion for discipline and action and a province of integrity and orthodoxy is moot. It is “dull and void”. It is “demised,” to quote Monty Python.
It’s a little as if there were two groups of farmers [no insult intended towards farmers—my grandfather was a farmer] who agreed that they would like to fly to the moon. [And please note that for this example I have chosen two equally insulting metaphors, with perhaps the more insulting belonging to MY group—so no flames, please!] One group says “If pigs could fly, and they did not depend on oxygen, they could fly us to the moon.” The other group expresses doubt that pigs can fly, and runs tests on the pigs and discovers that indeed, they do need oxygen. When finally the second group gives up on getting to the moon via pig, and sets off to build their own space station, even though they have no engineers or space scientists at all in their group, but they do have some nice cable and pvc pipe behind the barn, the first group wonders why they no longer wish to get to the moon. But it is not the eventual destination that the second group has given up on—it is the mode of transport.
The second group does not believe that pigs can fly. The first one hopes that pigs can fly. Eventually, at some point, the two groups must part. The first group will continue working on the pigs-flying model, and the second will work on building a space station, sans expertise. But it does no good for the first group to call after the second group “come back—we must fly to the moon on these pigs” when the second group no longer believes that pigs are able or willing to fly. Their hope in the pigs is lost. Dull and void. Demised.
Whenever I read the critiques of fellow-traditional Episcopalians by Communion conservatives, there is an “air of unreality” about the critique. It is as if they have never heard the clear and frequent and public pronouncements by the Federal conservatives of their First Premises, their goals and hopes, their values, their theology or ecclesiology, their conclusions. It makes me think that they have not listened to the Federal conservatives at all.
Two Essays, Two Analyses: Stephen Noll’s Thoughts
I turn now to Stephen Noll’s plea to the Network bishops. And as I read it, I understood his desire for the Network bishops to act together—but was amazed at how little he seemed to understand the group to which he was speaking. Understand—Stephen Noll is a smart enough man to know that several of the Network bishops are right there with him on his goals. So it is to the remainder of the Network bishops—the “Communion conservatives”—that Dr. Noll knows that he is speaking and attempting to persuade.
And yet. His words are manifestly unpersuasive, since they do not even bother to use the same language or value statements of the audience which he intends to persuade. He answers question which nobody is asking. He assumes values and future actions which are manifestly and publicly stated elsewhere to be unlikely and improbable given their theology and ecclesiology. He then proclaims to the Communion conservatives that they should do precisely that which they have stated they do not wish to do.
First, I don’t know of one Communion conservative who believes that ECUSA is reformable. Not one. I’m sure that they are out there, but they are a rare, or endangerred species. Communion conservatives that I know believe ECUSA to be imminently irreformable [save, again, for a direct action from God akin to His pouring out fire from heaven onto the soaked altars of Baal]. So Dr. Noll announces as his first premise—and the premise from which all other suggested actions of his supposedly spring—that ECUSA is irreformable.
And yet, for Communion conservatives, the admission that ECUSA is irreformable does not cause any of the other actions to flow forth like waters from a spring. Dr. Noll then states that, because ECUSA is irreformable, traditional Episcopalians should leave the Anglican Communion. Of course, his language says “leave ECUSA now”—but in the absence of a Communion-approved province, that is precisely what he is saying—“leave the Anglican Communion now”. And yet . . . the Communion conservatives have clearly, and repeatedly, and publicly stated that their values and goals are for Communion-discipline, a Communion-solution, Communion-integrity, Communion-identity. It is stunning to me that Dr. Noll would announce a truism—“ECUSA is irreformable”—and then state that because of that, Communion conservatives should leave the Anglican Communion.
Along the way, Dr. Noll invokes fellowship with the Common Cause partners—which begs the question of whether Communion conservatives have pursued or sought that fellowship at all, in light of their higher priority, which is that of the Communion and in light of their concerns about Common Cause—and invokes the orthodox Global South primates, when all of us already know that some of the orthodox Global South primates do not desire at all for us to leave the Anglican Communion, yet still hope for discipline within the Communion itself. And some of us suspect that NONE of the Global South Primates have any intentions of announcing their departure from the Anglican Communion as some of them seem to be asking of traditional Episcopalians. The unevenness of their intentions for us and their intentions for themselves is striking.
In short, Dr. Noll says to the Communion conservatives “seek unity—forfeit your own theology, ecclesiology, values, and goals—and accede to the theology, ecclesiology, values, and goals of us Federal conservatives.” It is a truly breathtaking letter, and one that I suspect had no persuasive power at all for Communion conservative bishops. One cannot help but ask why we then could not say back to the Federal conservatives “seek unity—forfeit your own theology, ecclesiology, values, and goals, and accede to the theology, ecclesiology, values, and goals of us Communion conservatives.”
I think, underlying much of this essay is a final and very fatal assumption which many Communion conservatives have tried to clearly challenge. You see, it’s not a choice for Communion conservatives between “staying in the Anglican Communion forever, or moving to an alternate conservative Anglican province which the Federal conservatives have set up.” If that were it, there might be some cause for irritation on the part of the Federal conservatives. I hear some commenters, for instance, talking about how they [the Federal conservatives] are doing the “heavy lifting” . . . but that rather begs the question of for what goal the heavy lifting is being done! The ACI might well, if they were so inclined, hurl a “heavy lifting” accusation at the Federal conservatives and wonder aloud when they are going to “get on with helping the instruments of unity discipline and re-establish order”—and that is an unjust accusation, since as stated above, the Federal conservatives do not have the Communion as their highest priority, nor do they have any trust remaining for the Communion. But when Federal conservatives announce that Communion conservatives should “do some heavy lifting” in regards to building a “new province” the effect is just the same. Communion conservatives do not wish for a new, non-Communion province. So why they should be doing “heavy lifting” in producing such a province is a source of bemusement and wonder.
The underlying and faulty assumption by Federal conservatives is that, should the Communion shatter, the Communion conservatives will all come trailing along, as Johnny-Come-Lately’s, to enter the new Anglican province that Federal conservatives have boldly and wisely set up.
This is very mistaken. When I speak with Communion conservatives about their plans, should the Communion fracture [as indeed appears likely] they do not speak about “sitting in the ruins of the Communion” which is the common caricature of them. They speak of surrendering the idea of Anglicanism within the US, and moving on to a functional church of another type altogether. Some mention Rome, some Geneva, some Augsburg. Few of them mention CANA.
Thus . . . it is no use to bellow across cyberspace to a Communion conservative “better now, than later, weakling-timid-cowards.” Because for many of us . . . it will be never.
To argue as Dr. Noll has done merely demonstrates something that I have suspected and now, judging by the comments after Dr. Radner’s resignation, believe.
Whenever I read the critiques of fellow-traditional Episcopalians by Federal conservatives, there is an “air of unreality” about the critique. It is as if they have never heard the clear and frequent and public pronouncements by the Communion conservatives of their First Premises, their goals and hopes, their values, their theology or ecclesiology, their conclusions. It makes me think that they have not listened to the Communion conservatives at all.
Dr. Radner’s Resignation from One Strategic Organization
This brings me to the ACI and Dr. Radner’s resignation from the Network. I need to say that there are several points of disagreement that I have with the ACI, and as I have listed my disagreements with the Network above, I will list mine with the ACI as well. I think their belief in the good will of the Archbishop of Canterbury is wrong, and naive. I have believed and stated that for years and Rowan Williams has done nothing but confirm my belief. That doesn’t mean that I believe that he is not a Christian believer, or creedally [at least] orthodox or a very lovely person. I simply believe that Rowan Williams determined, very early on, that he would provide no discipline during his tenure as Archbishop of Canterbury. With that primary goal in mind, his main strategy was delay of action by anyone, on either side. To that end, we have the Lambeth Commission, the Windsor Report, the reception of the Windsor Report by the Primates, the rejection of the Windsor Report by the “highest legislative body” of ECUSA, the reception of the rejection at Dar Es Salaam, and the “deadline” for non-action of September 30. Each deadline, each “reception”, each “report”, each speech and interview, each meeting was an artificial one designed to PREVENT ultimate action by either side and most certainly ultimate decision-making by Rowan Williams. When one deadline passed, a new one was enacted—indeed the purpose of deadlines was to enact new ones, and the purpose of reports was to encourage further reports to clarify the confusion of the previous report or the previous rejection of the report—but the ultimate purpose was simply to stave off action until Archbishop William’s eventual retirement in triumph, with the Communion “undivided” at that retirement.
I understand that many do not believe my entirely cynical and political interpretation of his actions and careful strategy. I understand that I could be wrong. But my interpretation, I think, can be seen by StandFirm commenters as utterly and predictably consistent from year to year; I have not wavered from my belief about this. I will be happy if I am proven wrong. I will be thrilled. But that is what I believe. So one can well imagine my immense frustration when the ACI postulates actions [not words, but actions] by the Archbishop of Canterbury that I believe that the past four years have proven to be unlikely. Nevertheless, as a Communion conservative who’s “got no place to go” I have been willing to see the game through to the bitter end. That is my duty and calling.
There are other areas of disagreement with the ACI. I have often thought that they have not responded quickly enough to the access that we lay peons have gained to their work. I understand that the ACI wrote and writes today for Primates and scholars. But since laypeople have gained access to their work largely through the power of the Internet in the past four years, it has seemed as if the ACI has marched determinedly onward with an eye for only ONE audience, when in reality they now have TWO audiences, quite by accident. The second is made up of laypeople and clergy with almost zero power, who are desperate for practical advice “on the ground” in perfectly dreadful situations. Perhaps that is never to be. Perhaps the ACI will continue writing solely for people who have ultimate and international decision power. And despite “blog-criticism” I do believe that they have done well to interact on the blogs through comments, particularly over the past year. I appreciate that. But still, one often gets the feeling that patients who have cancer must get when the attending physician marches in with his physician students, and the observing group begins to make medical pronouncements and analyses about the afflicted, with barely an acknowledgement of the patient’s existence. [For an excellent though terribly depressing visualization of this, see the movie Wit—but only see it with strong doses of friends, and happy pre-planned activities afterwards. Drinkers should also imbibe a lot of scotch, beforehand.]
The patient feebly states from the bed “Doc . . . is there a treatment? What does it all mean? Will I get better? Am I going to die? What was that big word you said?” And the attending continues grandly onward with his stately rhetorical march. If the patient has any strength in him [unlikely] the cries from the bed will grow stronger, until the doctor turns and marches out the door, with his flock of students trailing behind him.
Finally, the ACI and their allies often seem to “read into” pronouncements by various Communion instruments what they wish to see. I can think of no better current example than Graham Kings’ comment on Kendall’s blog yesterday:
“. . . people are still underestimating the importance of the ‘Windsor and Covenant Clause’ in the Archbishop of Canterbury’s letter of invitation to the Lambeth Conference and the seriousness of his intention in including it in his letter. It reads:
‘My hope is that as we gather we can trust that your acceptance of the invitation carries a willingness to work with these tools to shape our future.’
I have to sigh, when I read such a naive and innocent, yet serious, statement. The average revisionist bishop, even if he saw the “Windsor and Covenant Clause” in the invitation letter, passed over it lightly with a chuckle and one or more of these thoughts: “He may hope, but hoping isn’t reality” OR “Trust away, Mr. ABC, trust away” OR “Sure, I’ll ‘work with’ these tools . . . by wholesale gutting them if not in words then in interpretation. Watch us work!” This latter is the most likely thought by a revisionist bishop. They’ve always been happy to “work with” scripture, creeds, Lambeth resolutions, canons, constitution, tradition, and reason—“work with” to destruction and obliteration, that is. But “work with” they will, Dr. Kings, believe me, “work with” they will.
It is that kind of projection-of-hopes from Communion conservatives that causes me to fear that we are just too hopelessly apolitical to really do much good or ever be effective. Had Rowan Williams really wished to create some sort of “criteria for acceptance” of invitations to Lambeth, he would have stated this: “Your acceptance of this invitation to the Lambeth meeting necessarily involves your acceptance of the Windsor Report and Lambeth 1.10 as the standard for Communion teaching. We assume acceptance by your affirmative answer to this invitation and look forward with joy to your attendance.” But he did not so state that, or anything close to or like that. Instead, he said something as vague and nebulous as he possibly could so that all bishops could interpret it any way that they liked.
All of the above critiques being stated, I am glad that at least someone is speaking up for a communion-centered solution, and that is the Anglican Communion Institute, and pretty much ONLY the Anglican Communion Institute, at least in the U.S.
On to Dr. Radner’s resignation.
The Network’s clear trajectory or direction is out of ECUSA and out of the Anglican Communion [since Canterbury has refused to assist in setting up a new province]. Furthermore, the centerpiece of the Network is now Common Cause. Manifestly, neither of these priorities are those of Dr. Radner’s, and it does no good to pretend that the goals, values, and activities of the Network and the ACI are not very very different. They are. It is impossible for a person to promote the stated goals and intentions of BOTH the Network and the ACI at the same time.
Furthermore, he was a founding member of the Network, he assisted in writing its theological charter, he wrote an entire essay about why he was a member of the Network [remember his key word in describing the Network?], and he is a prominent member of the Communion, on the Covenant Design Committee and a member and leader in the ACI think-tank. There was no way that Dr. Radner could “slip away quietly.” Hopefully no one is imagining that that could have been the case.
Ephraim Radner, as a person of integrity and clarity and focus, needed to resign from the Network. And it is understandable that he should protest the statements of the leader of the Network, who clearly and publicly expressed a hopelessness and negativity over the instruments of communion and over the Anglican Communion itself. Surely we can all admit that it would be well-nigh impossible for a leader of the ACI not to address such statements with a firm and public renunciation of them.
Furthermore, it is understandable for some, if not most Communion conservatives to feel just a small tinge of betrayal over the very clear fact that the Network started out as a “we’re threatening to stay” organization and, as Ephraim Radner puts it “a ‘confessional’ movement within TEC, and this at the recommendation of Archbishop Rowan Williams. It was to be “confessional” in the sense of taking a stand, on the basis of stated and articulated Gospel commitments, in the face of official church positions and practices viewed as unfaithful.”
Although I do believe that the Network honestly began with that goal, and although I do not believe that the Network intended to deceive “Communion conservatives”, it is clear that a steady shift has taken place in its strategy and goals and values. The Network is now a “Federal conservative” organization. It is understandable for those who were in on the early part of this organization and who hold to the same beliefs as before should feel hurt and deeply disappointed over the Network’s change, even if they do not blame the shift on any malice or attempted deceit.
Neal Michell, over on Kendall's site, put it this way:
"However, the real damage by the Network was done long before this week. When so many people and churches and leaders in the Network left ECUSA, the Network became a coalition that failed to attract any other bishops and dioceses to it. That caused the Network to fail to be a rallying place for the Orthodox in ECUSA to oppose the nonbliblical innovations within ECUSA (and Canada) and made those opposed to the Robinson family of innovations to appear to be a minority. The departure of many fine Network leaders from ECUSA went hand in hand with the growing embrace of the Common Cause partners. The embrace of the Common Cause partners by the Network became a further deterrent to attracting other Windsor-leaning bishops to the Network. It was too complicated. Too much ecumenical dialogue and issues that these other bishops were not able nor willing to engage in at this time.
As a result, the orthodox within ECUSA who want to work things out with the Communion have no real group to be a part of and to look for protection or even counsel. None of the Network Deans are currently in ECUSA. As it stands, those clergy and lay leaders in ECUSA but who are in non-Network dioceses don’t get any encouragement to “hang in there and fight;” rather the counsel is for them to leave.
Why are ACI and others uspet? I can’t speak for them, but I lament the breakup of an organic, whole Anglican Communion. I don’t want to be a part of a federation of immigrant-based Anglican bodies with a multiplicity of American bishops, none of whom speak Swahili or Spanish or Igbo, etc. from the country of their province’s origin. There’s no real cultural integrity in that. I prefer the organic unity of Communion over a federation of churches. The course we are on seems to be headed toward a federation rather than a Communion.
In my view, the grass on the other side is only dirt painted green. We are backing into a mess of Anglican alphabet soup. I don’t see how nor do I believe that we will ever put Humpty Dumpty back together again. I would rather work on keeping Humpty Dumpty on the wall rather than on trying to put him back together again."
I recognize that Federal conservatives will not agree with Neal's take -- but his is a classic "Communion conservative" stance and there is no getting around the fact that the two disagree on these matters deeply.
There is one part of Dr. Radner's resignation that is troubling to me [other than the pain that he obviously feels, and the pain that the resignation will cause his allies and friends in the Network], and that is his pointless swipe at what or who is "Anglican."
Face it, friends. Fifty years from now, if any of us are still alive, there will be a small band of bizarre people called "Episcopalians" . . . and they'll be doing whatever practices that they've decided are really cool and representative of society’s beliefs at the time. Whatever they will be, I don't know -- let your imagination fly, and you will probably be right: sacrificing goats on altars, swearing allegiance to Pan, declaring that they are "vegansexual", or whatever. And you know what? They'll be saying that they are "classical Anglicans" . . . and we'll just smile.
Frankly, anyone can form their lips and tongues into the syllables and vowels of the word "Anglican" or "Christian" and name themselves that. I can personally attest to the fact that I can form my own lips and tongue into the syllables and vowels of "Buddhist" and even "blond". I can even name myself as "Buddhist" and "blond" and there is not much that anyone can do about it.
Strange sects and bizarre cults have been calling themselves "Christian" for centuries, and it makes no odds. What matters is always the same issue of discipline that Paul speaks of . . . and that is the question "Is this 'Christian' a member of your church?"
Is this 'Anglican' a member of your organization?? If not, then it makes no odds and it matters not.
So I just don't believe that we should get into a "spitting match" with other people about whether they are truly "Anglican" or not. It doesn't bother me for Continuing Anglicans or the Reformed Episcopal church, or the AMiA, or ECUSA, or Nigerian Christians to call themselves "Anglican" -- what matters is if the 'Anglican' is a part of your church. If so, he'd better be a fine representative of what your church proclaims to the world as its beliefs and practices.
I can think of no better practical example of the importance of church discipline than when the police discovered the despicable man who kidnapped Elizabeth Smart from her home and kept her captive for over a year. The press discovered that the man claimed to be "Mormon" but no sooner had they begun the crowing, then the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints stepped in and stated that he was not a member of their church, having long ago been formally excommunicated for his written heretical beliefs . . . and here were the papers to prove it. The press went away very sad, deprived of their prey. But it represents one of the great current examples of the meaningful importance of church discipline. Remember . . . any of us can claim to be Anglican. The important thing is to make certain that not "any of us" may claim to be a member of a particular Anglican church if we do not meet that church body's expectations of Christian discipleship and belief.
So, I do wish that Dr. Radner had not taken what only seems to me to be a useless, somewhat embittered swipe at who is “Anglican”.
Conservative Reaction to the Resignation
Having said all of the above, it seems as if the news that he has resigned from the Network because he does not share its goals has been met with surprise, consternation, and anger. The content-heavy accusations seem to be divided into two types -- 1) he has not “been unified”, and 2) revisionists are joyful.
With regards to the first, it seems that some people believe that “unity” occurs when people pretend to be “unified” with other people of differing goals and beliefs. But isn’t that eerily reminiscent of something -- can we have forgotten our beloved Episcopal church??? Haven’t we spent decades at General Conventions with bishops brokering pretenses of “unity” amongst people who simply do not believe the same basic gospel? Haven’t we all had enough of resolutions and statements that, when held in a certain light, mean whatever the reader hopes that they will mean, and whatever the clergy want to tell their concerned parishioner? Must even those who believe the gospel together pretend to be unified in other more minor matters, when they are actually not?
Unity occurs organically and naturally . . . when people are actually unified! It does not occur -- not really -- when one group of people says to another group “come over here with us and give up your goals and values and theology and ecclesiology and we’ll all be ‘unified’. And if that is the case, then why don’t all the Federal conservatives come on over here and “be unified” with me?
I can’t help but think of C. S. Lewis’s fine distinction between the way Satan wishes to be “unified” with us -- by absorbing us into himself, much like a spider consuming prey -- and the way God wishes to be unified with us -- through love and His own sacrificial self-giving, and through our becoming more fully ourselves, and more whom God intended us to be back before the world, the flesh, and the devil influenced us otherwise.
As to the revisionists being joyful -- I hesitate to repeat myself, but as I have said so many times before, I don’t give the revisionists’ emotions of joy, anger, distaste, or spite a second thought. No, wait, I don’t even give them a first thought. But for those commenters who are surfing over and reporting back, I’d never have known what they were thinking or feeling. I don’t read their articles, I don’t ponder their lives, I don’t attend their speeches, I don’t watch their videos . . . and from my perspective, focusing on their stuff takes the focus off of where it should be, which is our game, our strategy, our hopes, our activities. It’s one thing to watch game tape of the other side’s strategies periodically, and then get back to focusing on “our game” -- and that’s precisely what great athletes do. They may send their coach to develop a scouting report, but by and large, they focus on what makes their own game great, honing their unique and spectacular skills, and then, on the fateful day of meeting on the fields of play, “may the better player win on the day.” [And right now, it looks as if my side is not the “better player on the day” but that’s another story.]
Besides, the truth is that the smart and strategically-minded revisionists [and no, Father Jake is not one of the “strategically-minded”] will have already become aware of the disadvantages for the progressive side in Ephraim Radner’s actions. And those who have not become so aware -- well, it is not my job to worry about their mistakes of interpretation of our actions, nor is it any interest of mine to impress them or unimpress them. Either way, their opinion about our actions is essentially unimportant.
The Strengths of the Decisions We Are Making
On the Network's part, I am very pleased that they spoke with clarity and focus about their intentions. I am also pleased that they allowed dioceses, at least, some breathing room in their decisions by not overturning the accession clause in their constitution [this breathing room is not really applicable to parishes in revisionist dioceses, sadly, and I have already spent some time on the phone regarding decisions that Communion conservatives must now make.] And the fact that the Network is setting sail only after September 30 is a marvellous thing. The most generous and courageous decision, though, in light of their expressed and public theology and goals, is to attend what is to be, I expect, a perfectly dreadful House of Bishops meeting in September. No one on the reasserting side will look forward to this. Such meetings are usually filled with alternating screeching insults or cold disdain, and neither is pleasant to endure over a several day period.
All of us should be grateful for these actions by the Network, especially since their trajectory and intentions are so clear.
I have already mentioned one strength in Ephraim’s resignation -- it provides clarity.
Clarity is almost always a good thing -- a very good thing. It allows the varying individuals and groups within relationships to tell the truth, gain awareness of reality, rather than falsehood, and act in knowledge of the truth. Clarity strengthens organizations and individuals, just by its existence. If two people, or two groups, are in trouble in a relationship, no matter how bleak it looks, clarity is one of the first things that a counselor or pastor will seek. Best to know what one is working with.
Ephraim’s actions will also bring strength to both Communion and Federal conservatives. Both groups will have a more purposeful focus, and can gather around the differing goals of each with more internal unity, ironically. And there is less need to moderate or blur the direction of either group.
Moreover, the Federal conservatives honest willingness to “move on” with integrity and honor places -- accidentally -- all sorts of pressure on Canterbury and other players who have hesitated amongst many and varying opinions. There is nothing so frightening as an unleashed, driven person who has been freed of “anything to lose” -- and I have a feeling that this “nothing to lose” attitude will become startlingly clear and nervewracking. Communion conservatives have opportunity here -- although that’s a subject of another article entirely. But let’s just say that the Network makes the ACI look . . . shall we say . . . awfully moderate all of a sudden -- which is The Classic Revisionist ECUSA Game of so many decades, turned on its head.
Finally, and along the same lines, it is the “moderate” conservative bishops -- those who in the past I have named “trusting conservatives” -- who will also feel immense pressure. Greg Griffith’s metaphor of the crystal ball springs handily to mind. As each conservative on the right end of the pew slips away, he hands the crystal ball to the next person over, who once proudly proclaimed his moderation, and who is now on the “right end” of the pew.
You see, ECUSA won’t -- can’t -- stop plunging forward. It’s a stagecoach with some runaway horses and a clear field ahead. Moderate conservatives -- especially the naturally “stabilizing” and institutional bishops -- have much revisionist “shock and awe” ahead for them over the next, oh, say five years. It won’t be pretty. And I frankly think that will be good for the moderate conservatives. Time for them to know what it feels like to be on the very front row with a window seat of the runaway stagecoach.
There will be no buffer for them.
Our Character & the Gift of Leavetaking
All of the above analysis and critique is not the most important thing we have to learn, though. The most important thing in all of this is who we are all becoming.
And becoming has a whole lot to do with our present-day actions and choices right now.
All this time, we’ve been walking along a path, in conversation, as friends and allies. We’ve tried to be clear -- “I want to head over there eventually,” and “I don’t think I want to go there” -- but at some point, we can move no longer together on the same path. It will be time for individuals and groups to move toward their chosen destination -- to take a branch toward the mountains in the East, or toward the forests of the West, or elsewhere entirely.
There will be more of such leavetakings among us, many more.
So the question is, both spiritually and practically, how do we engage in the leavetaking.
In a sense, every human being partakes of leavetaking, throughout life. The child grows up and takes leave, steadily and surely, of his parent’s rule and priorities. The good parent encourages such leave-takings. The daughter takes leave of her college. The son takes leave to a new home and new family. The employee takes leave of his old job. The Christian takes leave, painfully and haltingly, of his old self, to become a new and transformed self. Our parents take leave of us and we weep. Our friends move on, and some of them go to the Grey Havens before we do. And of course, each one of us reading these words will go through a LeaveTaking that is final, mysterious, and never yet experienced. All of our lives is about leavetaking.
Tolkien’s three-book story, The Lord of the Rings, chronicles the story of the nine-person fellowship that is created to care for, guard, and ultimately destroy the ring. They travel together, eat and sleep together, fight together, and take counsel together. Although the story is filled with immense suffering, loss, confusion, and fear, one of the most painful times for the reader, and for the cast of characters, is when sudden violent catastrophe calls away two of their number, two more are captured, one is killed, one disappears, and the remaining three try to decide which direction to travel.
“Alas! said Aragorn. ‘Thus passes the heir of Denethor, Lord of the Tower of Guard! This is a bitter end. Now the Company is all in ruin. It is I that have failed. Vain was Gandalf’s trust in me. What shall I do now? Boromir has laid it on me to go to Minas Tirith, and my heart desires it; but were are the Ring and the Bearer? How shall I find them and save the Quest from disaster?’
He knelt for a while, bent with weeping, still clasping Boromir’s hand. So it was that Legolas and Gimli found him. . . .
‘Our choice then,’ said Gimli, ‘is either to take the remaining boat and follow Frodo, or else to follow the Orcs on foot. There is little hope either way. We have already lost precious hours.’
‘Let me think!’ said Aragorn. ‘And now may I make a right choice, and change the evil fate of this unhappy day!’ He stood silent for a moment. ‘I will follow the Orcs,’ he said at last. ‘I would have guided Frodo to Mordor and gone with him to the end; but if I seek him now in the wilderness, I must abandon the captives to torment and death. My heart speaks clearly at last: ‘the fate of the Bearer is in my hands no longer. The Company has played its part. Yet we that remain cannot forsake our companions while we have strength left. Come! We will go now. Leave all that can be spared behind! We will press on by day and dark!’
The fracture of the fellowship takes place at the end of the first book -- and there are still two books more in the series.
More leavetakings occur. Gandalf must be about mysterious business and he always seems to be missing in action at crucial turning points. The three who had sought their two friends find them at last, then must make another fateful decision about a course of action opposed by their allies who wish to march to defend the city of Minas Tirith.
“[Aragorn] looked up, and it seemed that he had made some decision; his face was less troubled. ‘Then, by your leave, lord, I must take our own road, and no longer in secret. For me the time of stealth has passed. I will ride east by the swiftest way, and I will take the Paths of the Dead.’
‘The Paths of the Dead!’ said Theoden, and trembled. ‘Why do you speak of them?’ Eomer turned and gazed at Aragorn, and it seemed to Merry that the faces of the Riders that sat within hearing turned pale at the words. ‘If there be in truth such paths,’ said Theoden, ‘their gate is in Dunharrow; but no living man may pass it.’
‘Alas! Aragorn my friend!’ said Eomer. ‘I had hoped that we should ride to war together; but if you seek the Paths of the Dead, then our parting is come, and it is little likely that we shall ever meet again under the Sun.’
‘That road, I will take, nonetheless,’ said Aragorn. ‘But I say to you, Eomer, that in battle we may yet meet again, though all the hosts of Mordor should stand between.’
“You will do as you will, my lord Aragorn,’ said Theoden. ‘It is your doom, maybe, to tread strange paths that others dare not. This parting grieves me, and my strength is lessened by it; but now I must take the mountain roads and delay no longer. Farewell!’
‘Farewll, lord!’ said Aragorn. ‘Ride unto great renown!
As we follow their adventures and tales, the reader slowly begins to recognize that the fellowship, in fact, is not broken. It is not broken at all. The characters are bound together forever, and their reunions -- and departures -- are tender and joyful, full of pain and suffering, but majestic and glorious.
In the saddest closing chapter of a book ever written, because it is filled with the knowledge of unseen beauty and longing that all human beings experience to one degree or another, the hero of the story cannot remain with his trusted friends, but must eventually take the long journey to the Grey Havens because, as he says,
“I tried to save the Shire, and it has been saved, but not for me. It must often be so, Sam, when things are in danger: some one has to give them up, lose them, so that others may keep them.”
How do honorable people, people of character and purpose and wisdom, take leave of one another at the given and appointed time?
Because that is the sort of person that I want to become. That is a part of the great purposes of God in our lives.
How do we watch our friends and allies take different paths, ones which we question and argue against?
As Episcopalians and Anglicans in the U.S. we have surely had enough experience in this as we watch our friends join the Roman Catholic church, the Presbyterian church, the new start-up Anglican church, the Lutheran church, the PCA church, the seeker-friendly non-denominational church.
So with our allies -- with people that have travelled together, fought together, and taken counsel together -- we must continue that experience.
It may be with remonstrance and debate and forthright, public honesty about the perils of the intended path. But it is not with shrill cries of insult, like children calling after former playmates, or with hurled stones at the backs of the departing, proclaiming them cowards.
It is finally with a clasped hand, and straightforward gaze, and with thanks and tears. It is with honor for the battle scars of the other, and it is with blessing and hope for a bright future. Though I have expressed my honest doubts, I want nothing more than for the Archbishop of Canterbury to reveal wisdom and honor and strength in his decisions. I want nothing more than for the uniting churches of Common Cause to leech the poison, unite with health, and flourish in discipleship and numbers. I want nothing more than for the Anglican Communion Institute to help to launch the revival of the Anglican Communion through their insight and teaching, by God's grace. I want nothing more than for the Network to embark upon a pattern of church planting, evangelism, and covenant keeping that sets our country on fire with repentance and love for Jesus.
With these hopes, as we watch varying allies tighten their sword belts, shoulder their packs, turn, and walk into the mists of the mountains, or the green mystery of the forests, during a very perilous time of spiritual and church conflict, we take leave with blessing and a hope that “in battle we may yet meet again, though all the hosts of Mordor should stand between.’
And then we turn to those companions that remain and take comfort from them. We mourn together -- a little -- then take stock of our supplies, prepare our plans, and “press on by day and dark.” In the coming months, a part of my contribution to this effort will be more essays that will take us further along the road of Strategery 101 -- much further.
But for all of us, taking whatever varying paths there are to choose amongst reasserting Anglicans, I wish that we will carry forth the standard of Jesus Christ, and encourage one another to “ride unto great renown."
144 Comments •
This is one of the most beautiful, spirit filled witnesses I have read on any of the blogs discussing our church, and is prompting me to write for the first time. I believe in the depth of my heart that Sarah’s spirit filled words about leavetaking are of the very same substance as the ones my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters in Christ often have spoken with their married spouses as they too embarked on their leavetakings, knowing, as Sarah has put it so well, that even at the end of a marriage covenant, the “fellowship, in fact, is not broken” but that we are “bound together forever, and [our] reunions—and departures—are tender and joyful, full of pain and suffering, but majestic and glorious.” Is this not what the Archbishop of Canterbury has been bearing witness to again and again as the essence of the Christian faith? Even as we find ourselves needing to take different paths, the bond of love is stronger than our selves, and our communion rooted much deeper than we can ask or imagine. Thank you, Sarah, for the depth of your faithful and heart-rending sharing of your witness.
Your brother in Christ,
Clark