Reviewing Friday’s Meeting with Bishop Stanton: A Few Notes & Analyses

And….................................there you have it.

Sarah,
As I said over on the Steenson interview thread, thank you for seeking out this bishop.  I would have loved to seen a video interview, with you asking the very same questions to see how they compared.  One thing seems clear, neither bishop is being naive or in denial about the EV “plan”.
Don’t you wonder where these guys would be if they weren’t bishops?  It’s not a thought to dwell on, though, since here they are. And I have no doubt, as Paul said to Timothy, that “for this reason…..”
I do seem to remember Bp Duncan being asked that question a while back.  And his response was that if he weren’t a bishop (that is, with a vow and vocation to uphold the unity of the church and proclaim to this Church the biblical Gospel, as Abp Williams was pressing), he probably would have left TECusa a long time ago.

Keep up the good work.

It is time for the Archbishop of Canterbury and the rest of the worldwide Anglican communion to act.  TEC is in clear violation of scripture and Christian belief not to mention centuries of tradition.  While passing no judgement on the LGBT community, it is, nevertheless, time to move on and cut the ties between the Anglican Communion world wide the EC in American.  Sad, but I can see no other option.

It does feel very much like a stalemate.  The next move looks to be the Primates’ response, but even then, what will change?  I will not drift into despair, but I am setting aside hope that the AC will be out of the woods anytime soon.

It will be interesting to see what perspective +Stanton gets during his trip to Uganda right after the HOB meeting (in the traveling paty- Lord Carey).  My prayers are with him.

Ooops “party”, not “paty”.  Preview, preview!

Sarah,

Thank you for an interesting insight into Bp. Stanton’s view of the proceedings. My own hope is that there is a movement towards reconciliation between the factions that results in a response to DES similar to what Ephraim Radner described in his own reflections elsewhere on Stand Firm.

Your report above raised some language that I found confusing and so I hope you will clarify what you mean by two things.

1.  Will you please clarify what you mean when you employ the modifier, “ideological,” to a group of progressives but not to another (i.e., the other group are called, “institutionalists”).  It seems like you are employing schema similar to the one introduced by Graham Kings last year in his Fulcrum essay before GenCon06, but substituting “Ideological” for “federal” and “Institutional” for “Communion.”  If that is correct, it would seem that you would also speak of “ideological conservative” and “Institutional conservative.”

But are you using “ideological” pejoratively (as it was so often used in the U.S. to impugn “communists” during the ‘Cold War era) or do you intend us to understand it neutrally, as in its definition of those having “a systematic scheme or coordinated body of ideas or concepts about human life or culture?”

And are you presupposing that “institutionalists” or any other groups, whether liberal or conservative, aren’t “ideological?” Is Stand Firm’s editorial board not “ideological?” EpiscopalCafe’s? Covenant’s?  Who is not ideological and who is and how do we know in your schema?

2. I struggle myself with ways to describe the rival camps into which we have become divided.  I would not myself characterize Bp. Stanton as an “institutionalist,” for example, (and I am not sure if you would or did either) if by that you intend to describe someone whose ultimate concern is the ongoing survival of an entity with a bureaucratic structure and a set of ideals that can be distinguished from the Church itself.  Indeed, I would describe Bp. Stanton as “Communion-minded,” by which I am trying to describe someone deeply concerned for the unity of the ongoing fellowship in Christ initiated by Jesus and passed down to us from generation to generation and received by us in the particular form of the Anglican Communion.  That fellowship to which I point is an embodied and Spiritual reality but is not, in my view, identical to a particular legal form like TEC. Since I believe Windsor bishops like Bp. Stanton have their eyes on preserving the unity of this fellowship entrusted to them, I would not describe bishops like him as “Institutionalists.” 

Can you clarify what you mean by these terms in the section of your report you identify as “Sarah speaking now”?

Hi Craig,

I wrote a fairly extensive article on what I believed would be the real battle in New Orleans and the divide between two camps in the “progressive wing” of the Episcopal church—I will repost that in a few minutes, as I think it could be helpful.  Essentially, as the progressive wing is predominant by a large percentage in the power structure of the Episcopal church, it is essentially up to them as to the track they wish to pursue.

Specifically you asked: “It seems like you are employing schema similar to the one introduced by Graham Kings last year in his Fulcrum essay before GenCon06, but substituting “Ideological” for “federal” and “Institutional” for “Communion.” If that is correct, it would seem that you would also speak of “ideological conservative” and “Institutional conservative.””

It is a bit like Kings’s work.  I see the “ideological progressives” as people who have decided that—even if the Communion fractures or even if ECUSA were to be “boundaried off” from the Communion—they are okay with that as long as their gospel is promoted within ECUSA.  They are what I call the “full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes” activists in ECUSA.

I appreciate their honesty, if nothing else.

The “institutional progressives” are people who, though they believe and carefully and slowly promote the progressive gospel, know full well that in order for their gospel to be received fully, they MUST have the institution undivided and able to move forward.  Plus—they need money for their capital campaigns and they don’t want the parishes in their dioceses to split.  ; > )  In short, parasite ideas always need an institutional host in order to “carry” that idea.  Even if the parasite is “whittling out” the institution, it’s best to preserve the facade of the host as long as possible in order to be able to present a good “face” to the outside world, as the idea is carried forward.

I call them the “let’s drop anchor here and hope they all fall asleep again” group. 

If honest, they would probably privately confess that consecrating Bishop Robinson was “a mistake at this time” because it definitely woke people up and caused the institution extraordinary distress and “division”—probably they should have waited another decade or so before taking such an action.

Much of the past four years has been about the internal conflict between these two sides, the “institutional progressives” and the “ideological progressives.”

I’ll repost the article, which explores this idea in immense depth.  We are seeing in New Orleans precisely this conflict working itself out in the HOB meeting.

Sarah I understand the distinction you make between “ideological” and “institutional” progressives; there’s still a question (that I think Craig was asking) of where you put +Stanton in this categorization.

Sam—I did not realize that Craig was asking that question. 

I know that he is not a progressive, and I certainly don’t think that he is an “institutional conservative” either.  But I don’t generally use the words “institutional” and “ideological” for the conservative wing, preferring other descriptors.

There is no doubt that Bishop Stanton is one of the VERY FEW BISHOPS in ECUSA who has been willing to challenge the structure of the institution by clearly denouncing its current theology, pointing to the gospel and orthodoxy continually, and acting to help establish the Network.  I see those positions as very very challenging to the institution.  These days, it’s very difficult to be publicly orthodox as a leader in ECUSA without by that very essence “challenging the institution.”

The divide amongst traditionalists in ECUSA I see as very different than the divide that we are seeing work its way out amongst the progressive wing of leaders.

Thanks, Sarah.  That’s clearer. 

And if I can make one more brief comment on these distinctions (sorry if I do not want to wade into the hundreds of comments at the older post):  my main concern with your labels is that they may be inaccurate towards the “institutional progressives.”  It paints them in rather Machiavellian terms, almost as if the Church is for them simply a pragmatic way of achieving their ends (whereas the “ideological” progressives think they can achieve those ends without the larger Church).  While that may be accurate for some, it obscures the possibility that for some of them the “progressive” move really is a consequence of the Gospel, and that their “institutionalism” is nothing more than a recognition that they do not have the right to make that judgment on their own.  I see that as miles away from the “ideological” view which has very little concern for the Gospel except insofar as it can be shaped to an externally defined agenda.

Does that make sense?  If that is a misreading of your labels I apologize… I wasn’t able to thoroughly reread your previous post.

Thanks, Sarah.  I appreciate both answers and I understand.  I don’t know enough about the “progressive” divide because I don’t encounter it sufficiently to warrant an opinion; I am glad to hear you see you would describe the divide between traditionalists with different concepts.  I still struggle with language appropriate to that task (setting aside as unworthy of us the cynical language to which we all may fall prey during our peaks of frustration).

Even then a title like “institutional progressive” doesn’t seem to cover those bishops who have reacted against the Network fearing being tarred with the same brush, or who have been shamed into espousing a cause they still doubt, or wish would go away because it divides parishes and loses people - that feeling doesn’t just have to be about money but may spring fom genuine concern - or who just don’t have the inellectual equipment to evaluate “scientific” evidence or biblical references. I realize that sounds patronizing but our method of selecting bishops doesn’t enquire deeply into intellectual capacity let alone spiritual depth. As I see it there are a good number of bishops who are reluctantly chosing sides because they know of no other way to react.

“The glaring reality is the anomaly of a church that has not changed its teaching—and a bishop consecrated outside of that teaching.”

As a priest in +Stanton’s diocese, I know that he has prayerfully tried to discern how his evangelical-catholic commitment to the Communion is to look.  One aspect of his modus operandi has been to methodically and consistently hammer away at the enormous and glaring “anomaly of a church that has not changed its teaching - and a bishop consecrated outside of that teaching.”  If you look at his 24 March 2007 letter after the House of Bishop’s meeting following “Dar Es Salaam” (see link ) he engages in this with devastating result.  What +Stanton reminds us is that while many in TEC’s HoB and elsewhere cry foul when the Primates ask what they have of the HOB and maintain that the rest of the Communion “doesn’t understand our polity,” this Province undertakes actions and passes resolutions in complete and direct conflict with previous actions and resolutions.  In the midst of the tendency to blur the lines of both reality and truth from many vantage points all along the right-to-left spectrum, +Stanton has sought to try and at least keep TEC accountable for the fact that they are in canonical conflict with themselves. 

When Archbishop Rowan was asked in the press conference what he had learned during his visit and replied that he had learned something about the the polity of this Province, he no doubt noted to himself that there are few who have taken up the task of trying to keep TEC accountable to her own polity.  +Stanton is one of those, which I hope to help clarify his mantra about abiding within the Constitution and Canons of TEC.  The canons are on our side (for the most part), he would contend, and “if we are to be any sort of ‘Catholic’ church” (to use Archbishop Rowan’s word from June 06) jettisoning the order provided by canon law is certainly not the place to start.