An Analysis of Andrew Goddard’s Latest Taxonomy

Perhaps the entire motivating factor for Goddard’s article is to eliminate the category of Collaborationist, or at the least, to place ACI outside that category. According to Sarah, he has evidently been unsuccessful at that.

Brer Rabbit, I’ll repeat a part of the comment I left over at the Noll thread.

I like the ACI and don’t think them at all irrelevant since they are pretty much the only group working within the Anglican Communion now and engaging in political strategic work within same.  As a ComCon one takes what one can get—and they’re it!

Also, I do not see anyone on their board who is a revisionist with regards to either the sexuality issue or other basic orthopraxes, not to mention creedal orthodox as well.

So my critique of the Goddard piece is not a critique at all of the ACI.

I hate to be blunt, but none of the labels being thrown around (revisionist, reasserter, rejectionist, et al) are especially helpful. There is a broad spectrum of belief along at least two axes. About the only set labels I use for my own thoughts are Christian and non-Christian, with occasional uses of apostate and heretic.

But [url=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gldlyTjXk9A”]what else would you expect<a>?

<a href=“http://billyockham.blogspot.com/”> I have a blog thingy [/url]

Simply brilliant Sarah.  As I said on the Noll thread I didn’t think it was a useful piece- but you had the ability to so neatly analyze and expose the problems with it… thanks.

Agree with Sarah about the ACI.  Any port in a storm.

I’ll also take any thoughtful taxonomy I can get.  It sure helps me when I can know that I wholeheartedly agree with someone on one point but see another point, that I or they thought to be core, as non-core.

Following Dale Rye’s recommendation over at Kendall’s site, I also commend for your reading Canon Twinamaani’s article.
Available here:
http://anglicancommunioninstitute.com/content/view/121/1/
and here
http://covenant-communion.com/?p=328

Throughout this controversy I’ve wondered at how “American” both sides must sound to much of the rest of the communion.  Canon Twinamaani’s article lays that out in spades.

IMHO, SF folks might want to give it a top level link.

Peace & Advent blessings,

When I first tired to read this article, I got all they way through the description of Rejectionists, and Reassertion, and quit.  The transparent attempt at triangulation led me to believe the rest of the article would be of no value to conservatives.  I fear the principle - perhaps only - utility of this article will be found by liberals who will use it juxtapose the ‘reasonable’ Andrew Goddard with the fire-eating zealots on his (extremely far and not-very-reasonable) right.

carl

Sarah, Thank you again… Also SFIF’ers should avail themselves of the link miserable sinner supplied above - http://covenant-communion.com/?p=328
for a good adjunct .... Comment - Sarah thanks also for your personal position statements and articulation -that’s where I am except for a little nuance - I think a lot of folks have wearied and now the +ABC/Lambeth link holds less attraction as does hoping for repentance in the TEC.  By-the-by, I don’t know @ this where you are, but here this position is very unpopular and divisive. (Of course we were the 1st. State to have Civil Unions - the State was sued sucessfully for such by two active Espicopalians - one Gay one Lesbian - Betcha’ did’nt know that!)

Sarah,

I found your article to be much more insightful than Goddard’s; your categories capture a greater percent of the Episcopal and Anglican population.

Goddard’s use of the term “Rejectionists” struck me as bizzarre, as if he wanted readers to say, “Oh, I’m not THAT. I must be more moderate.”

And, of course, everyone is more moderate than the sample quote he gave from a “Rejectionist.”  Classifying people by choosing the most extreme position, a position that virtually all people condemn, as somehow representative of teh entire population, is disingenuous.

Again, thanks for the thoughtful analysis.

DaveB:

Canon Twinamaani’s article is sobering.  Imagine what a mess we’d be in if ECUSA was the only solid institution in society that you could depend on in the USA. 

Shudder,

Good stuff Sarah.

Just wondering—would you like to comment on this:

Showing little willingness to consider it might be wrong—check.
...
It enters into genuine dialogue with those who are not convinced of this view, respecting their different view—I only dialogue with non-political, non-activists “who are not convinced of this view”—“dialogue” with gay political activists is essentially fruitless since they do not hold the same foundational worldviews, nor believe the same gospel.

Which sounds a bit like saying “Not only am I unwilling to consider that I’m wrong, I’m unwilling to debate those who are also unwilling to consider that they might be wrong.”

If I’m reading that correctly, then perhaps there’s nothing more you need to add.

Hi Marty,

Well, I do distinguish between dialogue and debate.  I have held fruitful and wonderful conversations that have not had debate in them—just respectful listening and sharing.  Surprisingly I enjoy listening to people’s perspectives who hold very different views from mine—I enjoy learning why people believe as they do, and that includes the emotions that go into those beliefs.

The other thing is—I distinguish between people who believe things and then go about their business and those who are committed to forcing others to publicly pretend as if they approve of behavior.  One of my fondest memories as a restaurant worker for a semester was the very kind and quiet African gay male who treated me to a “goodbye” time and some good thoughtful conversations.  I also thought he was easily the healthiest and most considerate person there!  Our acquaintanceship was based on respect.  This man had no interest in my “approving” of his actions.

But political activists in the Episcopal church are determined to inflict their beliefs on those who do not agree.  They have as their foundation values and perspectives and theologies that are inimicable to the gospel.  They are entrenched in their beliefs—as well as entrenched and hostile to those who resist their agenda. 

Until they reject that agenda—not their belief in the goodness of homosexuality but their agenda—they will never be interested in genuine “dialogue” but merely pretence and capitulation from those to whose resistance they are hostile.

Very well put—thanks for the clarification!  I couldn’t agree more.

Does not such ‘discussion’ really go to faith and openess to scripture… I’ve had some strong positions changed when someone showed me the right path… in fact unless you’re willing to be open, both sides, with a spiritual attitude, it’s only a conversation of positions. Perhaps interesting, perhaps a waste.

Sarah Hey:

I read threads like this with great interest, but don’t always comment on them much.  However, as far as I can tell, your position as a ComCon in this ongoing debate pretty much coincides exactly with my own.  When (if) the wheels do fall off, we may be headed in opposite directions, but in the meantime your posts give considerable encouragement to those of us who are only lowly second stringers on this particular team.  By all means, if this is a rearguard action we’re fighting, let’s make the most of it.  We owe you a tremendous debt of gratitude for showing us how it can be done.

As someone who is obviously directly affected by one of the presenting issues in the current controversy, and has much to say about it, I have also noted a great deal of insight and discernment on your part concerning this matter.  One of many gifts, it seems, that you’ve been given and have learned to cultivate, along with your natural talents and abilities, which are considerable enough.  This is demonstrated once again by the current thread.  The defense of Christian orthodoxy by those who have been converted to Christ from the gay lifestyle is a daunting task in the Episcopal Church today, and without the support and inspiration provided by faithful exemplars like you, it would be an impossible one.

In this particular instance, our “check marks” are in all the same places.  Why am I not surprised?

Just want to say: God bless you, dear sister in Christ.

episcopalienated

P. S.  OK, now go be “dolphinlike.”  But don’t overdo it!

Sarah Hey wrote:

But wait. What if most of the “Rejectionist” position and most of the “Reassertion” position is held in one package by the vast majority of the traditionalists in ECUSA?

Let’s look at [drum roll] me, for example, a ComCon who is fervently committed to remaining within ECUSA and the Anglican Communion.

I have the following characteristics of the Rejectionist position:

Showing little willingness to consider it might be wrong—check.

Are you truly unwilling to consider that you might be wrong, or is it rather that you have already considered the possibility but concluded that in this case you are not wrong? If confronted with an opposing argument, do you simply reject it out of hand or do you give it an unprejudiced hearing before coming to a conclusion? Did you at least attempt to read “To Set our Hope on Christ” or just assume it was garbage without ever cracking the cover? I’m going to guess you would take the second option in all three cases.

A tendency to insist strongly that this is a ‘first-order’ and ‘church-dividing’ issue—check. And in fact, this issue is not only a “church-dividing issue” but it will divide the church and not only the Episcopal church—you can go to the bank on that.

I find it hard to understand how it is possible both to believe that homosexuality is a church dividing issue, yet also be “fervently committed to remaining within ECUSA and the Anglican Communion”. Perhaps you could explain that further.

While not disagreeing that the combined viewpoint you describe is the one held by the majority of orthodox Anglicans, I really do think (based mainly on comments I’ve read on another conservative Anglican list, and a few here at Stand Firm), that there are some who take a considerably harder line, characterized by one of the few items you did not check, the emphasis on healing of same sex attraction, and ultimate marriage. They may *not* recognize the existence of those who “experience themselves as homosexually oriented”, holding, if I understand them correctly, that actual homosexual orientation does not exist, and gays only *think* they are attracted to persons of the same sex. They would not necessarily be interested in having the church be “pastoral and sensitive” to homosexuals, nor agree that the communion needs to do any “work on the subject of human sexuality”. (quotes from Lambeth I.10)

So why would Collaborationists wish to create such categories? I think there’s a simple strategic reason. If one creates such large, grand, and very flawed theological categories, that allows Collaborationists within the Communion to group themselves with a much larger group of traditionalists than they otherwise would find themselves in. After all, the thinking might go, surely no one among the ComCons will want to be perceived as a “Rejectionist”—perish the thought!

Collaborationists as you describe them are clearly included in Andrew Goddard’s category of Reassessors: “even if not personally convinced of the correctness of change, many of this view are willing to treat the issues as one of indifference (adiaphora) and tolerate diversity and plurality within church teaching and practice in order to enable discernment of God’s will.”

I also don’t see this essay as seeking to drive a wedge between Com Cons and Fed Cons, but as describing what the author calls “centrifugal forces” as the author calls them, that are pulling both the Autonomous Inclusivists and the Connectional Confessionalists away from pro-Windsor ‘communion catholicism’. Section 4.2 says of a rejectionist perspective: “While that stance may fit within ‘communion catholicism’ it is often (perhaps in part because the way Windsor applied its vision to sexuality) connected to ‘connectional confessionalism’.” This is by no means the same as asserting that Fed Cons tend to be Rejectionists, which appears to be the meaning you have seen in it.

But I am not really worried about who is a rejectionist, reasserter or even a collaborationist. I am worried most about two groups. First, those (whoever they are) who as you describe “really long for the Communion to shatter, and discipline to not be established”. I don’t know why they desire the destruction of the Communion, but I very much fear that they will get what they want. The other group is those among the Autonomous Inclusivists including TEC, who refuse to comply with the teaching of the Communion (I.10, Windsor, DeS etc) but won’t leave it voluntarily. They are very likely to produce the results so earnestly desired by Group #1.

Another tour de force from Sarah.  I agree with it wholeheartedly.
2 things from the above, however:
Goddard talks about “a whole-hearted gospel-based commitment to the full inclusion of same-sex partnered couples at all levels of church life”.  There is no such thing as this.  If it were so, then the VGR consecration would have been cause for celebration to all who love the gospel.  It seems to be pleasing only to those who elevate homosexuality above the gospel.

kyounge finds it “hard to understand how it is possible both to believe that homosexuality is a church dividing issue, yet also be “fervently committed to remaining within ECUSA and the Anglican Communion”.
Because, there are a lot of us still in ECUSA who are not going anywhere, and believe that God may even yet move in a way that allows us to remain on THIS side of that very “divide” of which Sarah speaks.

heart afire wrote:

kyounge finds it “hard to understand how it is possible both to believe that homosexuality is a church dividing issue, yet also be “fervently committed to remaining within ECUSA and the Anglican Communion”.
Because, there are a lot of us still in ECUSA who are not going anywhere, and believe that God may even yet move in a way that allows us to remain on THIS side of that very “divide” of which Sarah speaks.

I think I must have sounded more critical than I intended, or possibly just misunderstood what Sarah means by seeing the sexuality issue as “church dividing”. I am still within TEC also, and like Sarah I have not yet given up on the Instruments of Unity. I hope they will do the right thing, which IMO would be at the absolute minimum to put TEC and ACoC on “time out” and set up some sort of recognized alternative structure for orthodox Anglicans in North America. However,  I don’t see that as “dividing” the church; if it does occur there will still be one Anglican Communion, only with a somewhat different composition than it has at present. 

Other Anglican believers have concluded that the Instruments are not going to act and that now is the time to create an alternative structure, probably not in communion with the See of Canterbury.  That I would describe as “church dividing”—there had been one Anglican communion beforehand but there would be at least two afterwards.

Unless I have completely misunderstood Sarah, she would prefer the first of these two scenarios. So I didn’t understand how she would see this as a church dividing issue (scenario 2) when she is committed to remaining in the Anglican Commuion (scenario 1).

From kyounge1956 post above: - “I don’t know why they desire the destruction of the Communion,...”  I have not thought of this attitude, but considering it today I can see at least 3 things: 1) (Bitter) disappointment about the betrayal they feel re: TEC 2) a strong desire to belong and worship to a church representing the ‘old’ CoE values, 3) a just punishment for TEC. My two cents.

“First, those (whoever they are) who as you describe “really long for the Communion to shatter, and discipline to not be established”. I don’t know why they desire the destruction of the Communion, but I very much fear that they will get what they want.”

kyounge,

Although I am a Catholic, I have moved (and written for and about) Anglican circles for many years, and I can say (without naming names) that I have met bishops, priests and clergy (a good many of them members of the Forward-in-Faith/UK organization, some of them members of forward-in-Faith/North America and a few of them English Evangelical Anglicans) who hope precisely for such an outcome.  From their very different perspectives (the Anglo-Papalists who want “corporate reunion” with Rome, the Anglo-Catholics who want a clearly and explicitly “Catholic Anglicanism” in which, for some of them, the Seven Ecumenical Councils and the Affirmation of St. Louis replace the 39 Articles, and the Conservative Evangelicals who believe, in different ways and to differing degrees that the “Reformed Catholicism” of Anglican Christianity has been diluted [or compromised] since the 1620s by the genesis of an Arminian/anti-Calvinist/“ritualist” and “sacerdotalist” “party” or “faction” within Anglicanism that has portrayed its essential genius as a via media between Catholicism and Protestantism, rather than the rather differently-configured via media between Lutheranism and the “radical” Reformed Christianity of John Knox’s Scotland of John Calvin’s Geneva that Elizabeth I’s first Archbishop of Canterbury, Matthew Parker, praised) all of these have looked forward with pleasure to the collapse or dissolution of the Anglican Communion, and in some cases have spoken with me in some detail concerning the scenarios that they envisage should that take place.

comment deleted by commenatrix as off topic

Prof. Tighe,
What percent of the reasserters would you estimate that would be within the USA? And within England?

William Tighe wrote:

I have met bishops, priests and clergy (snip) who hope precisely for such an outcome.  From their very different perspectives (the Anglo-Papalists who want “corporate reunion” with Rome, the Anglo-Catholics who want a clearly and explicitly “Catholic Anglicanism” in which, for some of them, the Seven Ecumenical Councils and the Affirmation of St. Louis replace the 39 Articles, and the Conservative Evangelicals who believe, in different ways and to differing degrees that the “Reformed Catholicism” of Anglican Christianity has been diluted [or compromised] since the 1620s by the genesis of an Arminian/anti-Calvinist/“ritualist” and “sacerdotalist” “party” or “faction” within Anglicanism that has portrayed its essential genius as a via media between Catholicism and Protestantism, rather than the rather differently-configured via media between Lutheranism and the “radical” Reformed Christianity of John Knox’s Scotland of John Calvin’s Geneva that Elizabeth I’s first Archbishop of Canterbury, Matthew Parker, praised) all of these have looked forward with pleasure to the collapse or dissolution of the Anglican Communion, and in some cases have spoken with me in some detail concerning the scenarios that they envisage should that take place.

I have sometimes suspected as much from various comments at Stand Firm. I find such an attitude totally infuriating.

All of the things these people hope for already exist. If they want reunion with Rome, it is still there. What is stopping them from joining the RCC? If they want the Affirmation of St Louis and 7 Ecumenical Councils, then there is the Continuum. If they are more Reformed in their theology, there is the REC.

I wish people who want the AC to be destroyed would just join a group that already believes as they do. They’d be a blessing to such a group and be blessed by them. Why don’t they leave the Communion to those who value it and desire it to be cleansed and restored, instead of ill-wishing towards their own brothers and sisters in Christ and hoping for our misfortune?

I wrote:

“I don’t know why they desire the destruction of the Communion,...”

and DaveB replied

I have not thought of this attitude, but considering it today I can see at least 3 things: 1) (Bitter) disappointment about the betrayal they feel re: TEC 2) a strong desire to belong and worship to a church representing the ‘old’ CoE values, 3) a just punishment for TEC. My two cents.

You could be right. To group #1: please keep in mind Ephesians 4:31 and Hebrews 12:15. To group #2: I would like that also, but how will the destruction of the Anglican Communion make it more likely to happen? And to group #3: please remember Romans 12:19.

Deja Vu,

I can’t give percentages, only impressions, but I think that “they” are much larger in the Church of England than elsewhere, that is, that the “ultras” on both the Anglo-Catholic and the Evangelical sides, and especially the former, are stronger in England than elsewhere, especially among the clergy, and that the “moderates” are much weaker in England than elsewhere; and the same is true of the “Anglo-Papalists” among the Anglo-Catholics.

kyounge, 

Well, the fact of the matter is that there are fewer believers in something called “Anglicanism” in the Church of England, than elsewhere.  Many Anglo-Catholics of my acquaintance, when I lived in England, thought of the Church of England as the ancient Catholic Church of England, fortunately (for some) or unfortunately (for more) separated from the larger Catholic Church by the action of the Crown and without the consent of the Church of England itself (in which view they were certainly historically correct), but fortunately preserving those “valid Orders” which are (in their view) the bare minimum requisite for “true Catholicism,” and since in their view it was “hijacked” by the Crown without its consent and since since the 1860s clergy in the Church of England are not required to subscribe to the 39 Articles, a lot of these folk basically saw (and see) themselves as a “resistance movement” against the “occupation” of the Church of England by Protestants and (later) Liberals; and since their defiance of the authorities has been ignored since (at the latest) 1920, they have basically entrenched themselves within it.  I have had fewer contacts with Conservative Evangelicals, but some of them certainly regard the whole history of the Church of England since 1662 (or even 1553) as a process of slow decline from the “reformed purity” of the Church of Cranmer, Latimer, Ridley, Hooper and Jewel.  They can both make respectable historical cases for their positions; and I have certainly heard at first hand from representatives of both of these “extremes” expressions of bemusement or amusement at the manner in which “foreigners” (and especially American Episcopalians) express dedication to an “-ism” called “Anglicanism” to which they themselves are largely indifferent and which some of them view with contempt (as a concoction intended to marginalize those who espouse and assert, respectively, the “truly Catholic” or “Reformed Catholic” nature of the Church of England.  (It is this attitude, by the way, which accounts for the fact that Continuing Anglicans are extraordinarily rare in Britain generally and England particularly.)

I wrote a reply at titus (edited and included below). As I think more about Goddard’s essay, I get more chaffed. It is sad that he wrote it and sad that people defend it. The dichotomy of conservatives into a “we” (reassessors): caring, pastoral, reasonable, rational and a “they” (rejectionists, the name itself is preposterous): cold, dogmatic, proud, schismatic.

++++++++++++++++

In any debate, it seems, one side seeks to put pejorative labels on the other side(s).  Thus, pro-life and baby-killers versus pro-choice and clothes hangar distributors, etc. Goddard carries on this tradition.

Sarah rightly points out the clearly biased categorization:

The “Rejectionist” [ooh . . . cold and mean there!] position is characterized by:
<blockquote>a. showing little willingness to consider it might be wrong
b. a tendency to insist strongly that this is a ‘first-order’ and ‘church-dividing’ issue
c. interpretation of the current conflict in terms of ‘culture wars’
d. emphasis on a Christian response of ‘healing’ to enable people to experience heterosexual attraction and ultimately marriage.

</blockquote>

It is actually worse in that just before this slanted list, Goddard gives an example of hateful, “homophobic” rant, and implies that the rejectionists agree but just don’t vocalize their uncharitable, un-Christian feelings towards homosexuals:

...and even where such obvious revulsion towards anyone identifying as a homosexual is not expressed, the more moderate rejectionist position…(above list ensues)

So much for subtlety. Such a contrast to those warm and pastoral reassessors.

Let me reject the rejectionist and reassessor monikers and use the more accurate (in my eyes, at least) the Stand Firmers (SF-ers) and the conservative compromisers (CC-ers), and look at his criteria:

a. showing little willingness to consider it might be wrong. Hubris is not becoming. Most SF-ers are willing to consider that he or she is wrong but much less willing to consider that 2000 years of tradition and black and white scripture are wrong. The CC-ers? Probably no more or less guilty of intellectual hubris.

b. a tendency to insist strongly that this is a ‘first-order’ and ‘church-dividing’ issue. Ummm, are we asleep or merely ignoring reality? I would hope that it would be obvious to all, even those ensconced in academia, that the this is a church dividing issue. Perhaps he means that there could exist, hypothetically, a church where people on opposites sides of the issue sit in the pews together and events do not lead ineluctably to division. My answer is, “who cares?” There is just one Anglican Communion and in that organization it is a dividing issue.

c. interpretation of the current conflict in terms of ‘culture wars’. Again, reality comes into play. Homosexuality was a cultural anathema for 2000 years and this wasn’t an issue, nor is it much of one in Africa.

d. emphasis on a Christian response of ‘healing’ to enable people to experience heterosexual attraction and ultimately marriage. Most SF-ers do point out the hypocrisy that the re-orientation view being ignored in the listening “process” (Aack, I used the term! Hail Mary…x 10.) Scripture is not unclear: sexual relations are reserved for the married state between a man and a woman. As Kendall Harmon says, “Don’t get mad at me, get mad at God.” I am curious whether Goddard is saying that homosexual relations are ever permissible. I am pretty sure Radner and Seitz would say they are not. Perhaps, Goddard is saying that conservative compromisers are more willing to put a bushel over their lamp and merely not be forthright in their beliefs: “We secretly believe that homosexual relations are never permissible, but we are not willing to put that in writing lest we offend.”

Dr Tighe, I’m still not getting it. Why don’t those in the C of E who believe that the separation from Rome was unfortunate, simply convert to Roman Catholicism? Other than being unable to inherit the throne, which most of them weren’t going to do anyway, what disadvantage would that be to them? Are there still anti-Catholic laws in the UK?

I guess I have a blind spot. These people who want the Communion destroyed seem like someone who, moving into a neighborhood with an old Victorian house, once grand but now fallen into disrepair, not only decide for themselves that it isn’t worth the work to fix it up, but also wish it would burn down so nobody else can do so. Now you tell me that some of them, the ones you describe in the C of E, are not new to the place but have lived in the house for years; yet they still want it to be destroyed, even though they know there are other people in the house who wish to continue living there and are willing to do the renovations. I do not understand them at all.

Destruction of the house will bring great harm, or at least great sadness, to the other occupants but is of no benefit I can see to those who wish it. What is their motivation?

kyongue1956:
I’ll let Dr. Tighe speak for himself, and certainly not to put words into his mouth, but many Anglo-Catholics view themselves as following the authentic expression of the Catholic faith of the British Iles and its former dominions so don’t feel the need to “convert” to anything.  Especially modern expressions of Roman Catholicism.

Whether the Church of England and the provinces it spawned are all still properly expressing that faith in all its proper manner and forms is a different but certainly pressing question.

Advent blessings,

“Now you tell me that some of them, the ones you describe in the C of E, are not new to the place but have lived in the house for years; yet they still want it to be destroyed,even though they know there are other people in the house who wish to continue living there and are willing to do the renovations. I do not understand them”

I think that I understand them.  They think (both the Anglo-Catholics and the Conservative Evangelicals, but especially the former) think that they are the true owners of the house who were reduced to the status of mere tenents by force majeure and then forced to share the house with others against their will.  To push the analogy further, the various groups tenanting the house were able to get along in practice, but could never agree on any major remodelling or alterations—often they did agree on the fact that major repairs were necessary, but had totally different ideas about what needed to be done and about how to do it—and at times would combine in unlikely and more-or-less ephemeral alliances to prevent remodelling and to resist outside pressures for change.

comment edited by commenatrix- off topic

Thank you, Dr Tighe. Your extension of my analogy makes them somewhat more comprehensible. I still don’t like it, because I’m one of the “other people” and likely to be turned out into the street if they get their wish for destruction of the AC. I suppose they would say this is not their problem as I had no business being in their house in the first place, but I have lived there ever since I was born and have no wish to move away. >sigh<

Just to return to a summary of where I think all of these groups are in ECUSA:

FedCons [who are also reasserters]—departing ECUSA for alternate Anglican entities

ComCons [who are also reasserters]—staying within ECUSA for right now [or departing for alternate non-Anglican entities]; working for reform, renewal, and discipline within their regions or territories within ECUSA

Collaborationists—a small percentage of “conservatives” who are working for collaboration with liberals in ECUSA; as they are working for different goals there is little opportunity or need for ComCons and Collaborationists to work together

Rejectionists [Goddard]—non-existent group caricature

Reassertionists [Goddard]—a rather truncated vision of the much fuller reasserting ComCon

Sarah….and then there are those of us who really don’t want or need to be put into sub groups…we are tired and frustrated.  We are still in ECUSA, hoping still that somehow the clock can be turned back and not knowing ...not knowing pretty much where to go next and how to even try to accomplish that which seems to be near impossible.  Are we but dreamers?  I am perhaps just looking for a Saint Nicolas.

From kyounge1956 post above: - “I don’t know why they desire the destruction of the Communion,...” I have not thought of this attitude, but considering it today I can see at least 3 things: 1) (Bitter) disappointment about the betrayal they feel re: TEC 2) a strong desire to belong and worship to a church representing the ‘old’ CoE values, 3) a just punishment for TEC. My two cents.

I cannot speak for anybody but myself, but my comments:
1. I do not desire the destruction of the Communion. What is happening breaks my heart. But even worse is the possibility that the only representative of our noble Christian tradition is one that teaches heresy, rather than the gospel of salvation. The best option is unquestionably a restoration of the church. If that is impossible (as it seems to be in North America), and given that ultimately remaining in a heretical church is simply not an option, then starting again afresh is, though difficult and not what we would really desire, preferable to abandoning Anglicanism to the place where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth. You must understand that we firmly believe that what KJS (to give a concrete example) worships is just an idol of Christ, constructed in her image of what he should be, and not Christ himself, revealed in the scriptures and through the person of the holy spirit. There is for us no salvation, not transformation, no hope or new life in a false Christ; (possibly TEC’s Christ is still close enough to the true one for there to be some life in the organization—only God knows the answer to that; but it is certainly going the wrong way and what hope there is of finding true spiritual vitality is rapidly diminishing). Believing as we do, the church structure becomes a hindrance to the mission: to be witnesses to Christ in all nations. Christ comes first, the structure second.
2. Many of us have investigated liberal theology. My studies of liberalism have, if anything, strengthened my evangelical faith; so weak have I found the “reasoning” cited by the “opposition.” I did read To set our hope in Christ, and found it to be distinctly unimpressive.
3. There is also an important distinction to be made between the ‘Anglican Communion’ and the ‘Anglican Communion’: the structures of the communion on one hand (for example general convention and the canons of the Episcopal church, as well as the ACC, ABC, Lambeth etc. on the international level), and the traditions, and doctrine, and mission and the fellowship of people worshiping, with Christ as their head and Lord, on the other. Our first allegiance is, of course, to Christ, our second to the Anglican Church (as in the doctrine and people), our third to the structures (although our first hope is that we would be able to follow consistently follow all three). (This point is admittedly probably more the case for evangelicals than Anglo Catholics). The structures should be modified, if necessary, to support the doctrine and Christ’s mission; not the doctrine and mission modified to support the structure. If a part of the structure is diseased, then the best thing to do is to cut it out before the mission, tradition, doctrine and people of the church also become diseased and die. If the entire structure is diseased (which is emphatically not the case at the moment, with regards to the communion as a whole, and I pray that it never will be) then it should all be cut out, as far as possible to maintain episcopal order.

4. Additional reasons for seeking to leave TEC to add to your list:

(4) A desire to not support an institution which, while claiming to be Christian, in fact serves to lead people away from Christ.

(5) A desire that children should come to know Christ as we do, and a lack of trust that they can be led to Him in the average Episcopal Church.

(6) The experience that the structures of TEC hinder our efforts to fulfill the great commission, rather than help it.

(7) A hope that by acting in this way, some may realize how seriously we take this issue, how far they have fallen and come to repentance.

(8) A desire to remain obedient to the biblical text. “Treat him as though he were a pagan or tax collector.” “Do not even eat with him.” “Do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting.” “If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” “after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him.” etc. As well as the traditions of the church, where again and again faithful men of God have departed from heresy.

(9) To escape the inevitable judgment when God’s wrath falls on the Episcopal Church and its leaders.

(10) Out of respect for our ancestors, and the lives of the Martyrs, so that their work and sacrifices for this church should not have been wasted.
(11) But most of all, we are motivated by a love of Christ and his church. We cannot bear to see any blemish in the church, and the theology dominating the episcopal hierarchy is a huge blemish. If we did not care, we would just meekly go along and say nothing, and wait for its inevitable destruction, when God judges it as he judged the wayward tribes of Israel and Judah. But because we love the church, we have to act to preserve as much of it that can be preserved, in whatever way we can. Some people are called to believe that there is still hope that a remnant can still be saved, so remain until the last possible moment fighting for their own stone bridges. And that’s fine. Others are called to establish CANA or AMIA or Southern Cone (or whatever) congregations, to continue the commission without hindrance, and to provide a safe place for those who cannot stay any longer, and that’s also fine. But none of us want to see the Anglican tradition, and most particularly the people within the church, destroyed. Whether ComCons or FedCons, we are not acting to destroy the Anglican Communion, but to save it.

Right—but Boring Bloke when both I and Kyounge use the words “Anglican Communion” we are indeed referring to the construct, structures, and body of the official, formally defined “Anglican Communion” . . . NOT “the Anglican tradition” or “the people within the church”.  You have conflated all three, and most probably needlessly.

Kyounge . . . you’ve supplied some good possibilities.

But my personal theory about why a few Anglicans deeply and devoutly desire the destruction of the Anglican Communion is because they believe that once that structure and formal body is destroyed/fragmented that two things will happen.  1) The new body will achieve higher prominence and interest, along with, of course, its leaders, and 2) flocks of people in the old structure will join the new body because the old structure is destroyed.

My sense is that that latter reason drove a lot of the “destructive hopes” 10 years ago, and perhaps even as many as two to three years ago—but that it is slowly being toned down as they realize that flocks of people in the old structure will merely join another Christian and non-Anglican body rather than join the new body.

My question is why this preposterous new taxonomy and why now?

Dr. Noll asked provided one possible answer to these questions in the form of a question: “Does it perhaps it represent ACI’s laying the groundwork for approving the ABC’s rejection of Dar and rubber-stamping of the JSC rubber-stamping of the TEC HOB?” Seitz-ACI rejected the question. It is difficult to determine whether one member of ACI is speaking ex circularis or individually. Regardless, it seems that Dr. Noll is correct that Goddard, perhaps individually, is trying to advocate for an acceptance of the ABC’s white wash.

There are two parts to Goddard’s piece taxonomy of stance on homosexuality and one on ecclesiology. He identifies the warm, caring reassessors with the Communion Catholics and the mean, dogmatic, nasty rejectionists with the Connectional Confessionalists. The statement that really irritates me is:

The most pressing issue is, of course, whether JSC is correct to see TEC as now ‘Windsor-compliant’ or whether in fact TEC has failed to provide the necessary assurances requested by the Primates at Dar.

No, Windsor compliance is a smoke screen. The issue at hand is DeS compliance alone. As long as conservatives allow this to be blurred with the nebulous language of Windsor, discipline will be put off.

I am wondering if the real reason why the ABC is thwarting discipline is that the TEC has privately told him that if he “messes with’em” they will take their money and their fan club (which includes half of the CoE) else where. It is readily apparent that the TEC has been positioning themselves to do exactly this. Thus, homosexuality may or may not be a “dividing issue” to use the words of Goddard but disciplining the TEC might be a communion breaker.

So again, why the new taxonomy and why now? Any thoughts?

Don’t know if anybody mentioned this, but I found it odd that on the “rejectionist” side of the spectrum, an “unwilling to consider the possibility they might be wrong” was a requirement, but yet on the other end of the spectrum (the name escapes me, essentially the reappraiser max group) no such requirement “unwilling to consider that they might be wrong” was a consideration.

Thus, the only group that has to be classified by their intransigence in the truth is the anti-innovation group? 

Hardly seems fair…

KTF!...mrb

Mike see my note above (discussion of criteria “a”).

RE: “Regardless, it seems that Dr. Noll is correct that Goddard, perhaps individually, is trying to advocate for an acceptance of the ABC’s white wash.”

The ACI was, I thought, officially on the record as the ACI as majorly dissing the JSC report. 

I think people are making it too complicated.  I think the taxonomy is simply to provide—nay obscure—the Collaborationists within a much larger and more acceptable group.

One may reflect with interest as to why that may be desired.

Wow, Sarah…unusually “breathtakingly…petty.”

You do exactly what you accuse Andrew Goddard of doing…“Reasserter=Good,”“Collaborationist=bad.”

Your definition of dialogue is so narrow that it is pedantic.  You will only “dialogue” with those who do not know enough to believe like you do.  If they demonstrate that they show “little willingness to consider [they] might be wrong,” then you can not dialogue with these evil people.  Your definition is almost as bad as it is sad.  Dialogue involves disagreement.  Because you show “little willingness to consider [you] might be wrong,” then no one can dialogue with you as you are “ideologically commited to a worldview” that will not change.

But then I am just involved in a process of pretense….

I can’t speak for +Bob Duncan or anyone else in the Common Cause Partnership (CCP), but as a self-identified Advocate for the New Reformation, I wish to dispell some of the faulty assumptions andunfortunate misunderstandings that I sense behind some of the comments previously made on this thread.

Let me begin by noting that while I’m sure that Prof. Tighe is correct that there are indeed, as Andrew Goddard implies or indicates, some extremists who actually hope the Anglican Communion will suffer a major schism and permanently break apart, I do NOT think that is a fair characterization of the vast majority of us within the CCP.  We are reluctantly realigning out of desperation, not out of some perverse joy in “destroying” our beloved AC.  It may be significant that Goddard is English, and that Dr. Tighe has so much personal contact with the “ultras” as he calls them in England, the ultra-catholic and the ultra-reformed.  These English extremists would apparently gladly welcome a church divorce, no matter how bitter an Anglican divorce, in order for them to be free to remarry the new partner of their choosing.  But I just don’t see much of that on this side of the Atlantic.  Maybe I’m blind or naive, but I really don’t see it here.

But I will freely admit that in the end, I DO WELCOME the emergence of the CCP and the growing interventions by the Global South in North America.  I do firmly believe that nothing less than a second great Reformation is at last underway, with incalculable results.  And I readily admit as well that those results will undoubtedly be mixed, and that the balance of the cost/benefit ratio will almost certainly be quite debatable (as indeed were those of the original Reformation).

Jaroslav Pelikan, the great historian of the development of Christian doctrine, famously evaluated the 16th century Reformation (during his Lutheran period!) as “A TRAGIC NECESSITY.”  I find that a very apt and judicious assessment.  Among other things, Pelikan served as one of the main editors and translators of the American edition of Luther’s Collected Works (over 50 volumes!).  So when toward the end of his long and productive life he chose to abandon Lutheranism and convert to the Orthodox Church of America (Russian Orthodoxy), it appears that he switched from emphasizing the “necessity” of the Reformation to stressing the “tragedy” of it.  But I think he continued to affirm both sides of that paradoxical statement.  Or so I’d like to think.  I know that I do anyway.

And what I’m asserting is that we are facing a very similar situation today.  The Anglican Communion is very much, to use a familiar biblical expression, “a house divided against itself,” and as such it simply can’t and won’t stand for much longer.  Oil and water simply don’t mix.  Neither do Heaven and Hell, or God and Satan.

That of course, is a highly polemical and polarizing way to frame the issue, but I genuinely believe that it’s the truth.  Talk about wheat and tares is inappropriate in this case, for we aren’t dealing with two similar-looking plants that might be confused, so that some tares might be accidentally mistaken for wheat in the process of weeding out the tares.  We are dealing with corn and soybeans at best. 

Actually, we are dealing with something much worse than tares.  We are dealing with a terribly malignant cancer within the Body of Christ.  And you simply don’t tolerate cancer.  You bombard it with radiation or deadly chemicals, and if possible, cut out the tumor.  But whatever treatment you choose, you certainly don’t ignore it, or just hope that a malignant tumor will somehow mutate into a benign form or that the body’s immune system will magically fight it off.

Extreme situations demand radical solutions; halfway measures just won’t work.  The fact is that this crisis is exposing the sad truth that Anglicanism AS WE HAVE KNOWN IT will perish in this great struggle for its soul and for the course of its future.  Whatever else may happen (and much is very unclear and uncertain), at least we should all be able to agree that Anglicanism will never be the same!  The key phrase is the one I put in caps.  It is the present form and the present structures and even the very character of Anglicanism AS WE HAVE KNOWN IT that will surely be reforged in the searing fires of the controversy that is still heating up.  Like the famous twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York, the metal support beams that hold the whole structure together are being melted in the inferno of conflict that has been ignited by the foolish agents of a pernicious heresy that has hijacked much of the western AC and crashed the “progressive” wing into the unmoving bulk represented mainly by the Global South.  At some point, alas, those beams are going to give way, and the whole international structure will collapse.  Woe to those inside when it happens!

Is that unduly pessimistic?  Well, time will tell, but I regret to say that I think not.  Now, mind you, I’m not actually accusing the pro-gay, universalistic, relativist “reappraisers” of deliberately sabotaging Anglicanism the way the terrorists did on 9/11/2001.  It was more of an accident.  But alas, the results will be similar.

Or to use a less harsh analogy, the liberal western elite presently controlling the machinery of the AC seems to me to resemble a bunch of incompetent managers of a nuclear reactor, who inadvertently withdraw too many control rods and set off an out-of-control escalation of the nuclear reaction to the point that melt-down takes place, with all the deadly radioactive fall-out that implies.  After all, there is a point of no return, after which melt-down, or even an atomic explosion, becomes inevitable.

I believe we have in fact already passed that point.  I think +Bob Duncan “the Lion-heaarted” and the main Global South Primates have correctly perceived that.  Hence the consecrations of +Bill Atwood and +John Guernsey by Kenya and Uganda, with far more international support than the earlier consecrations of +Martyn Minns, and much earlier, +Chuck Murphy and +John Rodgers.  The active support of ++Drexel Gomez and ++Gregory Venables is the great sign of this.  The fact that these highly respected and influential primates have shown increasing support for the ongoing and acclerating “realignment” is clear evidence that Pandora’s fabled box has indeed been opened.  The toothpaste is now out of the tube, and it won’t go back in.  The barn doors have been opened, and some of the more free-spirited horses have gotten out, and they won’t be easily rounded up and brought back in.

I know that many are still grieving this immensely sad development.  There is no doubt that much that is precious in our Anglican heritage will be lost in the process.  Wars always produce collateral damage, and this church civil war will be no exception.  But wars aare sometimes inevitable, and even necessary, even within the Body of Christ.

If you continue to doubt it, reread Galatians.  Reread Irenaeus’ fierce, relentless, and even uncompromising attacks on the Gnostics.  Reread Athanasius, who often seemed to stand “contra mundum,” against the whole world, going into exile four times, rather than compromise the Nicene faith.  And not least, reread Luther, especially his three great essays of 1520 that touched off the uncontrollable wildfires of Reformation across northern Europe.

That is the kind of situation we are in today.  That is our fate.  That is our doom (in Tolkien’s language).  It is not just Anglicanism that is breaking up.  All the so-called “mainline” churches of the West are struggling with the same fundamental problem, namely, that two rival and mutually exclusive religions are currently co-existing under one roof.  It can not and will not always be so.  Just as you can’t serve both God and Mammon, neither can you serve life and death, or good and evil simultaneously.

“Multitudes, multitudes in the valley of decision.”  Yes, we are all rapidly coming to the point where a momentous decision will have to be made.  Some of us have already (in principle) made it.  Others keep postponing that fateful decision, “inside strategy” or “outside?”  Like Aragorn, torn over whether to continue to go with Frodo into Mordor as his protector, or to follow his heart and go to the defense of Gondor in its hour of greatest need, we understandably hesitate to make such a crucial decision, on which so much depends.

But we can’t put off choosing for long.  Some of us have already felt that we were forced to decide, regardless of how others may later choose.

I hope it doesn’t seem melodramatic or arrogant, but I would say to this whole readership what Joshua said to the nation in his great farewell speech: 
“CHOOSE you this day whom you will serve…
but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD”  (Joshua 24:15).
we now see taking place

Scratch the last (anti-climactic) incomplete line.  I overlooked it in proofreading the manifesto above.  There may well be some typos too. 

Then again, I seem to remember that Paul sometimes also messed up his grammar and left sentences incomplete in the intensity of his passion while writing Galatians, and some other letters as well.  I admit I was in a Galatians mood, not a calmer, more balanced Romans mood.

David Handy+
Advocate of High Commitment, Post-Christendom Anglicanism
Passionate Supporter of “the New Reformation”

Sarah, I perhaps said it poorly but my point was that perhaps it was and is still the official position of the ACI rejecting the JSC statement but that Goddard is individually maneuvering himself to advocate it. Indeed, you place the collaborationists in the larger reassessor camp. I looked back at the Matt+‘s “definition” of a collaborationist:

to those purportedly orthodox leaders who stay with the intention of supporting and facilitating the present mission and ministry of the Episcopal Church as she is currently led; those who are not actively seeking Communion discipline externally and implacably fighting for reformation internally; those who, after New Orleans for example, were hoping, betting, praying, that the Communion would buy into the lie of the House of Bishops’ Response; those who embrace wolves and blind guides as “brothers”; those who are prepared to accept false and heretical teachings with regard to homosexuality just so long as Communion with Canterbury might be retained; those who, in other words, who are not so concerned about false teaching as with ecclesial unity and who will, if push comes to shove, accept whatever lie emerges from the pit of hell just so long as they remain in league with Canterbury.

I think that Professor Tighe’s discussion of ultra-conservatives that desire that discipline would not be meted out so that the Communion will fall apart is mostly off topic (but interesting as usual!). There are two more important sectors not wanting discipline.

In the first, which I place myself, are the ones that are very concerned that true discipline will not be offered up and the TEC will be allowed to kick the can down the street more. I would rather no discipline be enforced rather than a false discipline. The false discipline merely mitigates the call for true discipline. False discipline would allow the invitations to mostly stand, etc.

The second sector, which I alluded to before, includes some of the communion cons and the ABC that fear discipline will lead to breakup of the communion. They fear the TEC will play its death card of withdrawing, taking its monies and friends (including half the CoE) with it. Again, this threat may have already been conveyed privately to the ABC. They fear that this would doom the Communion. It is a bigoted fear, in that it does not give credit to the faithful leaders of the Global South and does not recognize them as “true Anglicans”, nor does it recognize the power of the GS to survive without the TEC’s money, a foolish proposition if one looks at Uganda, in particular. Is Goddard of this persuasion?

P.S. Now, that was a rousing speech, Father Handy (and worthy of a separate thread of its own)!

Sarah Hey wrote:

Just to return to a summary of where I think all of these groups are in ECUSA: (snip)
Rejectionists [Goddard]—non-existent group caricature

Anglicans who take a harder line on homosexuality and what the Bible requires of homosexuals (focused on reorientation and marriage) than that described by Goddard for the “reassertionist” do exist. I’ve seen them elsewhere, and a few times here on Stand Firm. Denying they exist won’t make them go away, and in any case I don’t want to make them go away.  Although I don’t share it, I could be wrong. I think it is possible that a biblical case might be made for their stricter view, and there may be people who will be better helped by their ministry than by another.

The reason I keep on about this is that I hope the North American Anglican future will include many testimonies—from ex-gays who have reoriented and married, from those like episcopalienated who have been led to a walk of celibacy, and from others like this young man who know God’s love whether they end up married or single. If the stricter believers get ignored or pushed to the side, that won’t happen.

I don’t like being put in groups or “boxes”, as some call them.  I also don’t like the words “always” and “never”.  But if I am to be put in a group, I would be in the group that agrees with all of Boring Bloke’s comments.  I have the same feelings and I know there are others just like us because they exist in my church.  From the conversations I have had with members of other ECUSA parishes all across America I know there many that feel the same.  I also know that KJS is wrong when she says that we are a small minority.
Why is it so hard to figure out that many members are dissatisfied with the direction of ECUSA and need help from the ABC and the solution is simple?  Add another Anglican structure to the USA and call it whatever you want to.  It is worth saving many of the disenfranchised Anglicans.
I became a Christian many years ago in my childhood and will always live a spiritual life of helping those less fortunate than me.  I believe in the Bible and do my best as a sinner to follow Jesus Christ.  But I may have to do it without the Episcopal church.  There are many causes that are truly worthy where I can direct my funds and my time.

I wrote:

Now you tell me that some of them, the ones you describe in the C of E, are not new to the place but have lived in the house for years; yet they still want it to be destroyed,even though they know there are other people in the house who wish to continue living there and are willing to do the renovations. I do not understand them

and Dr Tighe replied:

I think that I understand them.  They think (both the Anglo-Catholics and the Conservative Evangelicals, but especially the former) think that they are the true owners of the house who were reduced to the status of mere tenents by force majeure and then forced to share the house with others against their will.

 
But they are not the owners of the house. We are all tenants,  and the Owner not only permits, but commands us to bring more tenants into the house.

But they are not the owners of the house. We are all tenants, and the Owner not only permits, but commands us to bring more tenants into the house.

“For many are called, but few are chosen.”

He host of the feast himself casts out those who are not wearing their wedding dress. (Sorry, using the wrong analogy.) And he slays those tenants who kill those messengers whom he sent to collect his share of the harvest. (I should stop mixing metaphors).

To actually use the correct metaphor, if a tenant does not stick to the contract he signed when accepting his tenancy (the terms of the contract are course provided by the landlord, not the tenant), for example, by tearing down the walls of the building or by not paying his rent, then the Landlord will tear up the contract and, either by his own means or through the other tenants, throw him out. However much the tenant protests that he is doing nothing wrong.

...Not that Sarah needs my help, but I couldn’t resist:

You do exactly what you accuse Andrew Goddard of doing…“Reasserter=Good,”“Collaborationist=bad.”

Actually, I believe the purpose of her thesis was to expose Goddard’s false categories.  Since Sarah and Goddard do not agree on categories, it’s hardly possible for them to make the same mistakes in rating the categories. 

I did enjoy though, your revealing soliloquy on the subject of dialogue.

Robroy,

I don’t know ho many others may have found my fervent speech above “rousing,” but I take that as a compliment.  Now, after a night’s sleep, I may be in a bit more mellow mood (more like Romans than Galatians).  And I’d like to offer some supplementary images of our Anglican future to the rather drastic and doubtless disturbing ones I used last night.

Let me clarify what I meant.  When I invoked the terrifying image of the collapse of the twin towers of the World Trade Center, I primarily had just TEC and the Ang. Ch. of Canada in mind, not really the whole AC as a worldwide fellowship.  I do think the current international “governing” or consultative structures of the AC are doomed and won’t survive; they weren’t designed for such a crisis and simply aren’t strong enough to handle such a fierce conflict.  But that does NOT mean that the whole Anglican Communion will be destroyed in the process.  For the AC is much greater than the current four Instruments of Unity/Communion.

As far as the whole AC goes, I would appeal instead today to the biblical image of the Lord remaking the badly flawed/ruined clay vessel that Jeremiah saw when he visited the potter’s house (see Jer. 18).  Just as the potter has the right to do as he wishes with the clay, so God certainly has the right to do as he sees fit with the AC, just as he did earlier with Israel.  That is a far more hopeful image, and it is actually my chief image of the future of the AC.  But note that such a drastic remaking of the clay jar indeed fits with my call for a New Reformation, not some lesser sort of “renewal” that only touches up a few blemishes in our system.

I actually am very hopeful about our future, despite how it may have sounded to many readers of my earlier post.  To use another such image, I believe that we are entering a period in which the AC is in sort of a coccoon.  The Old Anglicanism is like the catepillar, which is being transformed in hidden ways right now, but will eventually emerge in a radically new and much more glorious form as a butterfly.  That is, I strongly believe that it is our corporate vocation as Anglicans to participate in the saving death and resurrection of our Master.  The Old Anglicanism has to die, in order for the New Anglicanism to come forth, not only restored to life, but utterly transformed into a whole new kind of existence.

In a conservative venue like this, I’m always a little hesitant to give vent to my rather strong and perhaps harsh criticisms of the current form of Anglicanism.  It can easily be misconstrued as rude and seem as deeply offensive as criticizing someone’s mother.  And indeed, as St. Cyprian said way back in the mid third century, the Church is our mother, as surely as God is our Father.  So I hope I can do this without giving unnnecessary offense.

But the fact is that the Old Anglicanism we have known and loved so dearly was indeed fatally flawed.  And yes, I do mean fatally.  This great cultural and ecclesial crisis has merely exposed those latent flaws and made them unbearably manifest and inescapable.  That may be off-topic, so I won’t elaborate much here.  Suffice to say, that classical Anglicanism has always been theologically incoherent and fatally subordinated to the state (and captive to the cultural elite).  In other words, the Achilles heel of Anglicanism has always been, in my opinion, our utter captivity to worldliness, and our willing servitude to the old Christendom form of religion.  As Cranmer caved in to Henry VIII’s demands, and the later “Puritans” or mainstream English Reformed leaders of the latter 1500s basically capitulated to Elizabeth I’s adamant refusal to allow any further moves in the direction of copying the ways of Zurich and Geneva, and so on down to this very day, the C of E has remained very much a state church, with all the terrible and regrettable compromises that entails.  And above all, in the Christendom model of church life there is no need for evangelism, as everyone is already baptized as infants and assumed to be Christians.

But the Christendom era is clearly passing away in the West.  Thanks be to God!  How liberating!  Freed from the shackles of being subordinated to the state and released at last from bondage to the ever changing whims of the cultural elite and likewise freed from the delusion that everyone is a Christian, we now have a golden opportunity to rediscover a vibrant kind of Christianity, the like of which hasn’t been seen in Europe in about 1500 years.

A new day is dawning, not only for Anglicanism, but for Christianity as a whole.  I see it as bright with promise.  The shadows of accursed Constantinian religion are passing away.

Yes, as far as I’m concerned, the only thing worse than a state church is an ex-state church that still pretends to be a state church!  Or an ex-state church that simply doesn’t know any other way to think or act.

Now granted, habits formed over 1500 years are very hard to break.  But break them we must.  We must go through our own “recovery” program, to overcome our addiction to the approval of society’s rich and powerful.  For there really is no doubt.  The cultural elite has turned its back on Christianity (as is especially evident in Europe, where the process is much more advanced, but also just look at Canada, where tide is also running against authentic Christianity even faster than it is here in the U.S.).

But just as the pre-Constantinian church was able, by God’s grace, to take on the mighty Roman Empire and miraculously win, so can we too, if we are willing to allow the Divine Potter to break us down and remake us into a new vessel for his purposes.

The New Reformation is already underway.  Like a train just pulling out of the station, it may be starting rather slowly.  But once it picks up speed, it will be almost unstoppable.  Thanks be to God!
 
All Aboard!

David Handy+
Advocate of High Commitment, Post-Christendom Anglicanism
Passionate Supporter of the New Reformation

Brian from T19 . . .

RE: “Wow, Sarah…unusually “breathtakingly…petty.”

Not certain how my pointing out the errors of categorization of Goddard is “petty” . . . . but . . . could you not have come up with something original? ; > )

I guess not.

RE: “You do exactly what you accuse Andrew Goddard of doing…“Reasserter=Good,”“Collaborationist=bad.”“

Actually, no.  I merely described their characteristics and let it go at that.  I don’t personally wish to be a Collaborationist but I recognize that there are a small number of them in ECUSA. 

RE: “Your definition of dialogue is so narrow that it is pedantic.”

No—unless you are saying that the vast vast majority of gays are “progressive activists” my dialogue is not narrow at all.  The vast vast majority of gays are not in fact progressive gay activists. 

The truth is, the only folks interested in a “process of dialogue” are progressive activists—and their “process” is all about control, and manipulation, and delay while they get their power all lined up.  Those people who aren’t progressive activists just talk, Brian, and I with them.

But as we all know . . . progressive activists don’t want to “just talk”—they want a “process of dialogue.” 

RE: “Dialogue involves disagreement.”

So true—and I dialogue with many many many people with whom I ardently disagree including gays. 

But not progressive gay activists—not enough in common to even begin a conversation.  Unless, of course, you are speaking of conversation about movies and books and coffee. 

But . . . I suspect that you are not.  ; > )

RE: “But then I am just involved in a process of pretense….”

Haven’t actually noticed you involved in any sort of process at all, much less dialogue.  Certainly you and I have not experienced any sort of “dialogue” that I can think of.  We’ve merely asserted for public viewing what we believe and what we do not.  That’s what I see you doing on blogland, and that’s certainly your right.

But it’s not only not “just talking” but it isn’t even the political process of dialogue.

But if you are engaged somewhere in a “process of dialogue” then yeh . . . it’s just pretence.

David Handy, your New Reformation Advocacy is getting some attention over here (and by ACI, of all things).

...back in the Briar Patch,

Br_er Rabbit,

Thanks for calling my attention to the discussion on T19.  I wasn’t aware that robroy had commended my recent posts here on that venue.  Thanks, Rob!  I’ve already posted a response over there.  And yes, an application to join the New Reformation I’m suddenly leading is on its way to the Briar Patch.  Welcome aboard!

David Handy+
AKA “Leader” of the New Reformation (if Dr. Chris Seitz says so, it must be true!)

David Handy+  Wow!  I can’t wait for your book to come out (re: your T-1:9 comments).  I look forward to reading more from you, as your comments come from a place of strong conviction and the heart of one who knows his Master.  Your identification of some of the intrinsic problems of our Anglican heritage is very thought provoking.  Do you have a web site, some place we can hear more from you?  God bless you and your ministry and thank you for speaking out here.

Sarah, very good criticism and clarification of what is hidden beneath the surface in the Goddard piece.

Like I said, she doesn’t need my help.  My only consolation is that I went first.  I certainly wouldn’t want to follow something like that, with my own meagar fisking.  Oh my. 

Brian, you’re an enigma.  You claim that life in the EPC was an exercise in self-loathing;  but here you are, constantly inviting dolphin attacks with your less than thoughtful posts.  Methinks that life in the ‘fundamentalist’ EPC would have been much kinder and gentler. 

To each his own. 

BettyLee,

Thanks for your kind words and enthusiastic response.  As a very new poster of SF and T1:9 I appreciate and need all the encouragement I can get. Don’t hold your breath waiting for my book’s release though; I haven’t even lined up a publisher yet and it’s only half-written.

As for a website, I’m sorry to say that I don’t have one (yet).  But I’ve been thinking about starting one.  And if I get enough fervent replies like yours, I might do so sooner rather than later.  Meanwhile, I’ve probably posted a couple dozen things over the last couple of weeks on SF.  If you can locate those, you might enjoy them.

Gratefully,
David Handy+

RE: “Wow, Sarah…unusually “breathtakingly…petty.”

I guess not.

Convicting someone with their own words is just more fun-personal preference I suppose.

RE: “You do exactly what you accuse Andrew Goddard of doing…“Reasserter=Good,”“Collaborationist=bad.””

Actually, no.  I merely described their characteristics and let it go at that.  I don’t personally wish to be a Collaborationist but I recognize that there are a small number of them in ECUSA.

The very word ‘collaborationist’ is a judgment.  But assuming it is not, how does your description differ from Andrew Goddard’s? To claim that you are not making the same distinctions is simply intellectually dishonest, which is something that is not a part of your character (at least as far as I have seen).

RE: “Your definition of dialogue is so narrow that it is pedantic.”

But as we all know . . . progressive activists don’t want to “just talk”—they want a “process of dialogue.”

I assume you have a dictionary, so I won’t go into the history of dialogue with you.  Your ‘list’ of people you won’t dialogue with is far broader than homosexuals who are progressive activists.  It is in fact anyone who shows little willingness to change their mind.  Which I suppose prevents you from ever having an internal dialogue;)

RE: “Dialogue involves disagreement.”

But . . . I suspect that you are not.  ; > )

I am not, but then neither are you.  Again, intellectual dishonesty.

Haven’t actually noticed you involved in any sort of process at all, much less dialogue.  Certainly you and I have not experienced any sort of “dialogue” that I can think of.  We’ve merely asserted for public viewing what we believe and what we do not.  That’s what I see you doing on blogland, and that’s certainly your right.

But if you are engaged somewhere in a “process of dialogue” then yeh . . . it’s just pretence.

Actually, again, we have dialogued.  And as far as pretense, I have shown willingness to admit when I am wrong, change my position when evidence is presented and apologize when I have misrepresented someone’s ideas.  On the other hand, you have an all-encompassing, activist agenda.  You are the exact type of individual with whom you refuse to ‘dialogue.’  The difference is in the “stakes” and how we perceive them.  You believe that you are doing ‘God’s work’ or some sort of mission for Jesus and I don’t.  Your opinion, to me, is simply that.  My opinion, to you, is a matter of the eternal.  That’s why you dialogue.  I just find it intellectually interesting.

RE: “Convicting someone with their own words is just more fun-personal preference I suppose.”

Well then this must have been a heartbreak to you—have to be “convicted” you know, in order for that wish to come true!  ; > )

RE: “The very word ‘collaborationist’ is a judgment.”

Well, yeh . . . I guess if you define “judgment” very broadly . . . all words are “judgments”—each and every one of them.

RE: “Your ‘list’ of people you won’t dialogue with is far broader than homosexuals who are progressive activists.  It is in fact anyone who shows little willingness to change their mind.”

Nonsense, Brian—I exchange marvelous conversations all the time with folks who have “little willingness to change their mind” and their minds are very very different from mine.  You don’t know whom I hang out with and converse with.  They include pagans, seekers, Buddhists, feminist Marxists, and on and on.  Nope—the difference between your average proud pagan [so they call themselves] and a progressive Episcopal activist is not the lack of willingness to change minds.  The difference is that I have enough in common to engage in conversation and exchanges of ideas with proud pagans, but not enough in common for the progressive gay Episcopal activist.

Of course . . . I had already explained that in my article above.  The thing you don’t like is not how “narrow” my opportunities for “dialogue” are but simply that I point out just how little there is to base a conversation on with your average progressive Episcopal activist, as in practically nothing.

RE: “I am not, but then neither are you.  Again, intellectual dishonesty.”

Huh?  I’m not the one claiming to “engage in a process of dialogue” with progressive activists.  I just have nice normal conversation with folks I have some things in common with.  So how my frank admission of this is some sort of “intellectual dishonesty” I don’t know.

RE: “Actually, again, we have dialogued.”

We have?  Making assertions of what we believe is “dialogue”?  Uh, okay—you kinda have a Very Very Very Very broad definition of “dialogue.”  Brian—I don’t even call what we do “conversation.” 

We’re not sharing.  We’re not offering feelings.  We’re not “giving our perspectives” so as to “learn more about the other.”  None of that.

And I thought you had said you weren’t a “progressive Episcopal activist”—you are now?  ; > )

RE: “My opinion, to you, is a matter of the eternal.  That’s why you dialogue.”

Brian—I’m sorry, but I don’t give a flying fig of what your opinion is, much less it’s being “a matter of the eternal.”  What on earth does that mean?

And again—if you call this “dialogue” . . . oh boy . . . then I’ve been engaged in the “listening process” through T19 for the past four years.

Uh . . .

Nice.

; > )

Maybe we need to define some terms here.  Anything I do on this blog with somebody like you is not, to my mind, either “dialogue” [which I don’t do, in the strict sense, with a single soul, since I think it’s a silly political contrived process of manipulation] or “conversation”—which I do with hosts of folks and to me consists of sharing information, perspectives, ideas, feelings and more in order to get to know the other and for them to get to know you, with nothing in mind as far as trying to change “the other”.

Maybe I should have offered that distinction in the article.  But in so far as Goddard was using “dialogue” I assume that his definition was similar to mine for “conversation.”  And in that case, I “converse” with folks who are different from me and unlikely to change their minds.  But that ain’t gonna happen with a progressive Episcopal activist—like I said, not enough remotely in common.

On another note—and solely as a matter of concern and caring—I continue to be concerned for your health, and for your evident sense of isolation. . . .

You’re overwrought, Brian from T19. I have opened a window for you. A little air will do you good.

And in that case, I “converse” with folks who are different from me and unlikely to change their minds.  But that ain’t gonna happen with a progressive Episcopal activist—like I said, not enough remotely in common.

How much more can you have in common with a pagan or Buddhist than whatever a “Progressive episcopal activist” is?

“conversation”—which I do with hosts of folks and to me consists of sharing information, perspectives, ideas, feelings and more in order to get to know the other and for them to get to know you, with nothing in mind as far as trying to change “the other”.

We have had this type of “conversation.”  You just don’t recall.  You once asked me to explain how I came to believe what I do and I shared my story.

Sarah, maybe you could write an essay about “dialogue” as a spiritual weapon. Goddard uses the willingness to “dialogue” to differentiate those cuddly reassessors from the prickly rejectionists. I, for one, want to run away from those wanting to “dialogue” or to engage in the “listening process”. Do you remember the green witch in the The Silver Chair? Strum, strum, strum, there is no sky, there is no hope, there is no resurrection, there is no Aslan,..., strum, strum, strum.

From KJS’s letter:

Strum, strum, strum, “Dear John-David…It is difficult to have dialogue with one who is absent.” strum, strum, strum,...a way, not the way, strum, strum, strum.

I thought the words sounded familiar:  i.e.

“On another note—and solely as a matter of concern and caring—I continue to be concerned for your health, and for your evident sense of isolation. . . .”

Remember the attack on The Mrs. Matt Kennedy?  How “concerned” EK was about her attitude, and isolation? 

My Gosh, they’re all reading from the same page…

Grannie Gloria

RE: “How much more can you have in common with a pagan or Buddhist than whatever a “Progressive episcopal activist” is?”

A fantastic question.  It is probably something that I should write an essay about.  It is fraught with rich and extensive content, but it would be another lengthy one.

RE: “We have had this type of “conversation.” You just don’t recall.  You once asked me to explain how I came to believe what I do and I shared my story.”

I stand corrected then.  It appears that we have, in the past four years, had an exchange of real conversation.

It does not appear that it was “dialogue” especially since you yourself have claimed that you are not a progressive Episcopal activist.

. . . Does this mean that you would like for me to close the window?

Sarah, from where I sit I see a question being begged, so I’m going to go ahead and ask it.
You said:

You don’t know whom I hang out with and converse with.  They include pagans, seekers, Buddhists, feminist Marxists, and on and on.  Nope—the difference between your average proud pagan [so they call themselves] and a progressive Episcopal activist is not the lack of willingness to change minds.  The difference is that I have enough in common to engage in conversation and exchanges of ideas with proud pagans, but not enough in common for the progressive gay Episcopal activist.

All right, what are the elements of common ground that you have with pagans, seekers, Buddhists, feminist Marxists, etc., but not with the progressive gay Episcopal activist? I think it would shed some light if you laid this difference clearly.

Ah. I just noticed you’re already looking at the question, in the previous response. I would simply ask that you take on this question, if only in some abbreviated form.

yohanelejos, I do believe that I will add the topic to my article list.

I think it would generate a lot of discussion.

I get the sense there’s a whole lot of pain and sometimes rancor that gets linked in with this topic, due to the struggles of the last number of years. Hopefully, what will result is an argument that would hold water even with Christians from entirely different areas of the world who hold to a full-blooded Nicene faith and are not directly part of the American tragedy.

Boring Bloke wrote: 

if a tenant does not stick to the contract he signed when accepting his tenancy (the terms of the contract are course provided by the landlord, not the tenant), for example, by tearing down the walls of the building or by not paying his rent, then the Landlord will tear up the contract and, either by his own means or through the other tenants, throw him out.

Absolutely correct. I was replying to mainly to something that was edited out by the Commenatrix. Dr Tighe had written:

For the “Catholic party” [this] was seen as an attempt to dispossess them and force them out—a repeat of 1559 (and 1532); and a lot of them seem to have decided that rather than permit that, better to destroy the house—or at least resist with such disruptive vigor that the house might collapse of its own weight

What I was responding to was this view of some of these longstanding residents that the house is theirs to destroy. They are completely right that the tenants in Apartment 815 have broken the terms of their lease and should have been evicted quite some time ago. Frankly, I’m beginning to wonder about the manager! He’s been notified of this problem years since, but the process of eviction is moving at a glacial pace. 

I hope that, rather than pulling down the house around everyone’s ears, these tenants of long standing would be willing to go together with the other concerned residents to the owner, and ask Him to deal with the situation.

kyounge, I think we’re in territory where St. Theresa of Avila’s aphorism applies: “the mills of God grind slowly, yet they grind exceeding small.”

RE: “How much more can you have in common with a pagan or Buddhist than whatever a “Progressive episcopal activist” is?”

A fantastic question.  It is probably something that I should write an essay about.  It is fraught with rich and extensive content, but it would be another lengthy one.

I could write an essay about that, too.  If it exceeded one sentence in length, I would be surprised. 

In fact, it occurs to me that a self-professed non-Christian could at a glance understand, articulate, and even agree with the thesis. 

And then of course, others would dismiss it as ‘pendantic,’ and (that most egregious of sins) ‘having a narrow view of Dialogue.’ 

Moot, I don’t follow.
First, what are you saying the thesis is?
I would guess it is, “a traditionalist believer in a church like the Episcopal church would have more in common with your regular non-churchgoer or even Buddhist than with a progressive Episcopal activist.”
With your normal person off the street, not particularly aware of what’s going on in TEC (remember even for members of the church, how few are fully aware!) I think they would be just a little shocked that the above statement would hold true.
Now, I can postulate some reasons that the statement would hold true, mostly having to do with who has, or does not have, an axe to grind with respect to a reasserter—but Moot, what is the reason that you have in mind? And as I have already said, for a rationale to hold water, it should make sense to some basic believer far removed from the current “combat conditions” in the US.

RE: “And as I have already said, for a rationale to hold water, it should make sense to some basic believer far removed from the current “combat conditions” in the US.”

yohanelejos, I agree with what you say.  As a side note, nearly all of the non-Anglican Christians that I know—PCAers, non-denominationalists, Roman Catholics, Lutherans, etc, etc—would agree with my thesis.

Brian—I’m sorry, but I don’t give a flying fig of what your opinion is, much less it’s being “a matter of the eternal.” What on earth does that mean?

Now this is significant.  The eternal, as you know but pretend not to, is the state of the soul.  In your worldview it relates to salvation as well as a person’s relationship with God.  If you do not care about other people’s salvation, then you are either a universalist (something you have denied in the past) and we have something in common after all or simply honest and deserving of respect.  This to me (and I am not trying to poke fun or be facetious) is true intellectual honesty.  However, it does raise questions.  If there is not much at stake, why be such an anti-progressive warrior?  Your activism must come for some reason, right?

Moot, I don’t follow.
First, what are you saying the thesis is?

I can’t speak for Sarah, but my own thesis would be that TEC’s “inclusive Gospel” is counterfeit Christianity.  That’s how a TEC progressive activist can “dialogue” with a Christian for four years, and yet be no closer to a real convsersation than the day they started. 

Tell a Buhhdist that Christianity’s claim is to be the true religion, and that Jesus is -the- Way, -the- Truth, and -the- Life, and they will probably smile, agree that this is Christianity, and then blithely reject it.  Tell the same thing to a Muslim, and they will adamantly assert that theirs is the true religion.  Tell the same thing to a TEC progressive activist, and their reactions will range from being antsy to confused (Case-in-point, on this very thread). 

Basically, the religion of Tash and the religion of Aslan have more in common with one another, than either of them have with the religion of Tashlan.

RE: “If you do not care about other people’s salvation . . . “

Now now, Brian, not caring about your opinion is not so dramatic as not caring about your salvation.

But thankfully I am not in charge of your salvation, God is.

RE: “If there is not much at stake, why be such an anti-progressive warrior?”

Well, it’s certainly not because I am under the illusion that my actions are going to save someone’s soul.  Resisting the agenda of the progressive activists in the Episcopal church is quite enough joy.
; > )  Maybe I resist them because “they are there.”  ; > )

Resisting the agenda of the progressive activists in the Episcopal church is quite enough joy.
; > ) Maybe I resist them because “they are there.” ; > )

Good answer!

The fun never stops!

Goddard has a response to some of the comments here on

http://anglicantheologyethics.blogspot.com/

(Sorry, but I can’t link directly to the article.  It was posted Dec. 5, 2007.)

I read about half of it, and found myself increasingly annoyed on two accounts:

1. It persists in what I believe to be a distorted view of the conservative (and liberal) landscape in the U.S., and

2. It uses a little of the same weird pseudo-gracious language as the liberal establishment in the U.S., which I find enormously grating, and even cause for suspicion.