You may remember that I mentioned in my “Roistering Episcopal Adventurers” strategery article that some have postulated two types of “Anglican conservatives”—“Federal Conservatives” and “Communion Conservatives”.
Graham Kings describes those two types in this way:
“1. ‘Federal Conservatives’, in the bottom right, consists of those who are conservative on sexual ethics but who do not consider highly the ecclesiology of the Windsor Report and especially its warnings against transprovincial interventions. They would not be unhappy with the demotion of the Anglican Communion to a Federation of Anglican Churches. Examples of this group may be the Anglican Mission in America, which began with transprovincial consecrations, parts of the American Anglican Council and the Archbishops of Nigeria and of Sydney.[19]
2. ‘Communion Conservatives’, in the top right, consists of those who are conservative on sexual ethics but have a high regard for the ecclesiology and the recommendations of the Windsor Report. They are keen to hold to the concept of Communion. Examples of this group may be Fulcrum and the Anglican Communion Institute and the Bishop of Pittsburgh.[20]”
The Anglican Communion Institute certainly stands as a prime example of that latter category, Communion Conservatives. They have just released an excellent analysis of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s two statements on General Convention, and a review of what, in their minds, is the road ahead of “Anglican Maturing”. [hat tip: Kendall Harmon’s blog]
I encourage a full read.
In the article they describe “two different understandings of Communion and how to maintain it”—and they critique one of those understandings.
Here is their description of the two different understandings of Communion.
“One [understanding] has assumed, and may still assume, that something called ‘orthodoxy’ can be maintained by carving out ecclesial space in a new province. How this may be achieved is conceivably through a variety of means, but one popular avenue is by forging links to primates and other regions in the Communion. The main concern is getting distance from ECUSA and achieving an ‘orthodoxy’ identifiable precisely by its public detachment from this local ecclesial reality.”
“Another has assumed that the chief concern is with maintaining the highest degree of Communion possible by the necessity of disciplining a wayward province, in whatever form that is proper, through consultation with the same Communion. Here the role of Canterbury, in conjunction with the Primates, and the ECUSA’s historical claim to be in communion with Canterbury and a constituent member of the Anglican Communion, are viewed as the best way to think about discipline within the Body. At issue is not detachment or separation, but the determination of Communion full-stop. Communion is here defined by means of conciliarity, under the authority of Holy Scripture and in the light of received Christian teaching. In the contested area of sexuality, Lambeth 1.10 is the last conciliarly determined statement of human sexuality in this Communion, and compliance with this teaching is a sign of Communion.”
The ACI goes on to critique the first understanding of the Communion in this way: “In our view, the problem with the first ‘strategy’ being pursued by conservatives is that it seeks to create a new province by detachment, but leaves unclear what the responsibility for maintaining the Anglican witness in this region is, as a historical and providential fact. It does not want to take up the work of determining the character of Communion, in such a way that those who do not wish to be a part of it can be identified through their own consent and decision. This may result in parallel provinces and putative links to ‘orthodoxy’ in regions beyond the US, but the work of Communion will not be taken up, only moved to a different place for adjudication. Or it will simply be left dangling.”
I do want to point out what appears to be two central “values differences” inherent in those who hold to the two understandings of Communion that the ACI describes.
First, the “detachment from ECUSA” group desires to *first* detach, then “determine the character of the Communion”. It appears to me that the ACI wishes to first solve the riddle of the “character of the Communion”. That latter option, as we have seen, will involve many, many years more of work.
For those whose very high priority is to get away from the poisonous theology and practice which is now represented in a national and legislative and formal and official and public way in ECUSA, I think it is understandable for them to leap off the boats into lifeboats [to mix metaphors] and figure out the building of a new boat later. They are now forming “clusters” of lifeboats, it seems, as well.
The second central “values difference” that I see between the two understandings is that those of understanding 1—“rapid detachment from ECUSA”—firmly believe that the way one “identifies” those who do not wish to be part of an “orthodox” body, is to see if they enter the “orthodox” body that those of understanding 1 build. It’s a necessarily “opt-in” way of looking at it, rather than the “opt-out” system that Communion Conservatives are promoting. To carry the “boats” analogy a bit farther, those who never leap off the ship into a “lifeboat” will not desire to be a part of the “new boat”.
Necessarily then, the size of the body that those of understanding 1 envision is significantly smaller than the size of the body that those of understanding 2 envision. And—it seems to me when thinking of the values of those of understanding 1—that that smaller body is just fine by them.
They necessarily believe that the number of “orthodox” Anglicans is significantly smaller than the number that those who hold to option 2 seem to be interested in gathering.
One advantage of the “detachment from ECUSA” understanding of the Communion is that of speed. I’ve noticed that many of those laity, clergy, and parishes that hold to that understanding are in fearfully troubling situations. They believe, rightly or wrongly, that for the protection of their parishes and their witness they must detach.
Some parishes have laypeople who *will not* give to new buildings and desperately needed parish expansions. Some parishes have bishops that are punitive, and that have assured rectors in charge of congregations that, once they leave, that parish will not receive another orthodox priest. Some laypeople have pagan friends that they would like to invite in to their church—but as long as the parish remains shackled to a highly questionable denomination, they do not wish to invite those seekers to a body that is very corrupt on a national level. What will happen, for instance, when such a seeker, now a “new baby Christian”, gets transferred to, oh, say, the Diocese of Newark, the Diocese of Ohio, or the Diocese of [insert any one of 40 to 50 here]. Where will that “baby Christian” attend church? Some laypeople have children who are just now hitting that age of 11, 12, 13—and those children are becoming very aware of the sort of denomination of which their parents are members. Those same parents have been struggling to teach their children a particular sexual ethic—one that is astoundingly difficult to pursue—and their denominational ties are clearly yet another hindrance to that pursuit.
Given all of the above issues, I’m not certain that those two fundamentally distinct “values differences” will be able to be worked through in order to achieve unity of strategy for “conservative Anglicans”.
11 Comments •
Bravo, Sarah!
You have hit upon one very important existential “nub”:
1) Given an assessment that the Episcopal Church is totally apostate, what should a member of that denomination do in order to remain a faithful disciple of Jesus the Christ?
2) How immediate must any resolution of question (1) actually be?
3) Who decides question (2) - the institution or the individual?
Bureaucrats and theologians both delight in constructing “systems” within which to operate. The problem is that such systems are not designed for the average person “in the ranks.” Indeed such “systems” are designed for self-preservation. Individuals are not usally a concern of either group.
In the days when there was just one church, I believe individuals were constrained to let the bishops resolve issues of correct belief and then pass those down to the presbyters, the various congregations, and finally down to the individual believer. In short, the non-clerical believer could possess himself in patience and wait for the pronouncement from above. I also suspec that, in sucha a situation, the individual believer would rarely be aware taht there was any conflict at all!
In the situaation we find ourselves now - multiple denominations which all claim to be “Christian” - I believe the individual’s responsibility has now changed. I think individuals are now burdened with the task of determining just where the Truth actually lies and which camp is holding onto it.
So I see this latest ACI pronouncement as focusing on the dilemma of the Institution - the Anglican Communion - and not at all on the dilemma of the individual believer.
This has been my objection to roughkly 90% of the dialogue and debate which has occurred over the years. Those debates and dialogues, rarely address the questions that plague individuals. Who or what do we believe? Can we trust our own interpretation of Scripture? Classical Anglicanism - and I believe true Chritian practice - depends on the witness of those faithful saints who have gone before.
How an we be sure that we are not making decisions basied on our personal preferences rather than being in accord with God’s will?
I think there are two issues which make up this struggle - the Institutional isse and the Personal issue.
It may just be the case that individuals will have to separate or “detach,” if you will, from the Institution in order to reamin faithful disciples of Christ.
This is an issue that the various groups like ACI, AAC and ACN do not seem to be able to come to greps with, in my opinion.
So I think that what will result before all of this is over is that individuals are going to have to band together with those whom they feel they can trust and maintain whatever Community that they can fashion, whether within a denomination or outside of it.
Some may have to leave the Episcopal Church until such time as the intitutional issues are resolved in order to protect their young children from the corruption of the current body. The fact that the numbers have been steadily dropping since the mid 1990’s or before indicate to me that a lot of individuals have drawn the same conclusion.
I offer this thought in the hope that it might be helpful to those who are still strugling witht the question of “What do I do now?”
Unfortunately, I don’t think that ++Rowan’s statements nor the current ACI statement are going to be any help in making that decision.
Peace