Ecclesiology: The Achilles Heel of Orthodox Anglicanism?

Dear Matt:

In short:  Good thinking.

With more detail:  I think what you are saying is that there are different perspectives/beliefs that underlie our opinion of the church.  Therefore, those ideas determine how we deal with the recent apotasy of the Ep. Church.

I don’t, however, agree with this:  It does not at all bode well for the future of orthodox Anglicanism.

I would submit that the only of the few good things that have arisen from this current state of affairs is that we finally have Unity in all these factions of the Anglican faith here in America.  For example, we are an ACN affililiated church.  However, we just had a visit from a dynamic priest from Wyoming from an Amia Church.  We are laying differences aside and uniting as true Anglicans.

None of this, means, however, that these divisions you speak of will desist or even quit causing some problems.  However, as long as our willingness to follow what Christ has said and taught is paramount - then the divisions will take a back seat the primary good.  ECUSA’s problem is that it forgot that and is more interested in apostolic succession.

I hesitate to start because I don’t know if I’ll be able to carry this thought all the way through.  This well articulated study in ecclesiology is defined within the boundaries of time and space.  Jesus is beyond time and space.  As we are called to a personal relationship with Jesus and, at the same time, live within the boundaries of time and space, I see our call as shuttling between the Church Militant and the Church Triumphant (through prayer and through living in the confidence that Christ has indeed already overcome). 
I’m preaching to myself here.  Christ has already overcome this sorry Anglican mess.  The more we are able to proceed in the confidence that Christ is sovereign over the sorry mess, in the sweet trust of young children, the more these differences in ecclesiology and our impatient marking of time will fade into a different plane of focus.
That’s not to say we ignore the task at hand.  Indeed, God placed us at this moment in history for this task, but, for proper focus, this task is best viewed from the shuttle track between the Church Militant and the Church Triumphant.  This is a season to stay on the shuttle track.

Eclipse,

I agree that the current troubles have definitely brought some close unity where there had been very little between evangalicals and Anglo-catholics. This is a wonderful thing.

The line you quote above, however, was in reference to what I see as new cracks along the same old fault-line that do not bode well because they could spell the dissolution of both parties. THose orthodox who stay with ECUSA come what may would be incredibly reduced in power and influence by a departure of evangelicals….the same thing happened when the REC split in the 1880’. TEC’s Orthodoxy was diminished. It also happened after WO in the 70’s, this time with the departure of primarily Anglo-catholics who saw the issue as essential to the catholicity of the church.

This is not, please understand, an argument to stay. I do not think we should. I support a new structure and do not see Canterbury as essential to our identity as a catholic/Anglican body.

However, it is a sort of lamentation for the orthodox split I see looming.

If the ministry of a bishop is merely a matter of good polity, and not a mark of succession from the Apostles (even if it a particular bishop may be false) then why adhere to Anglicanism?  Lutherans and Methodists have bishops not in the succession.
In otherwords, why the need to have an Episcopalianism at all?  Other protestants adhere can have sacraments and vestments, etc.  What would be the riason de etre of Anglicanism, if not its catholic heritage combined with a reformed theology?

And I say this as one who would be both evangelical and catholic.

Matt, I agree with you that we face a real risk that the reformed/Anglo-Catholic fault line is going to mar the future of orthodox Anglicanism.  I don’t necessarily agree that this is determinative of what tactics we embrace as we move forward.  I’m sure ecclesiology is going to divide roughly along the points you’ve outlined, but I think the vigorous arguments here are more about practical strategy.  I lean to the Anglo-Catholic end, for example, but I agree with you on point 4; I think the early Church would have as well, since they faced the same thing with Arian bishops who were in valid episcopal succession, yet had departed the Catholic Faith.

I’m willing to wait and see what the Primates do, but it is becoming increasingly clear to me that ECUSA is a cancer that is not only irreformable, but will gradually destroy any faithful communion it is allowed to influence.  It is aggressively dedicated to the proposition that, at best, there should be no definition to its version of “Christianity” (ineluctably leading to a torpid unitarianism) or, at worst, the Christianity of the ages should be dynamited and rebuilt in the image of the 21st-century American university.

“If the ministry of a bishop is merely a matter of good polity, and not a mark of succession from the Apostles (even if it a particular bishop may be false) then why adhere to Anglicanism?”

I think most reformed/evangelical Anglicans would take issue with the words “merely” and “not”.

The question is: is the fact that our bishops are in historic succession and therefor in the line of apostolic laying on of hands, reason enough to stay in an institution that no longer manifests the first and third marks of the church?

Phil,

If our current roiling debate is simply about decision making avenues then there would not, I believe, be the condescension on the one hand and vitriol on the other. The inflamatory nature of the fight over say, +Stanton’s address, seems to run far deeper than contemporary strategy. If you see the deep ecclesiological fault line, as you do its difficult not to see at least some connection to the evangelical/anglo-catholic divide with regard to succession and catholicity and the debates over whether to appeal for a separate structure or hoof it alone. 

But you make a good point and, of course, I could be all wrong

Fr. Kennedy, not sure I totally understand your merely/not distinction.
I think the end question is the same for catholic, evangelical and combo-Anglicans.  And I think the answer is “NO” as it has always been—loyalty is to Christ and not to the structure.  However, I think there should be a devotion to fight a tenacious fight before giving up on the catholic structure, even if it means fighting behind enemy lines for a time (as we have been doing, as the Reformers did).  The catholicity of the Church is a gift of God, just as His Word is.  Both are worth fighting for and preserving.  I think on that, all stripes of orthodox Anglicans can agree.

And you have identified the crux Rick:

“And I think the answer is “NO” as it has always been—loyalty is to Christ and not to the structure.  However, I think there should be a devotion to fight a tenacious fight before giving up on the catholic structure, even if it means fighting behind enemy lines for a time (as we have been doing, as the Reformers did).”

The point of my argument is that ecclesiology in large part determines when that NO takes effect. The break-point for an orthodox thinker like dr. Radner is somewhat different than that of an evangelical like John Rodgers…

My intitial reaction to Matt’s newest excellent article (other than, wow!) was more in line with Phil’s “I think this is more about practical strategy” comments.  Not to say there isn’t this undercurrent present, though.

I note with some humor that Phil (with whom I think I would disagree over the strategery questions) describes himself on the AC end of things but leaning toward Matt’s 4, while I am on the evangelical end leaning toward Matt’s 1.  Weird.  Maybe I misread Matt’s piece but I thought he would have predicted the exact opposite from us.  Peace!

You are right, I would have never placed you as an evangelical WG

All the same, your weddedness to the visible structure of the episcopacy as one of the true marks of the church, does seem quite catholic of you.

Phil, the AC, would agree with you ecclesiologically on that point at least.

I do admit that there are a number of AC’s for whom number 4 above does apply. In my article I assumed that most of them have already gone. That they left over WO.

Matt, I think I’m around your age - WG, I don’t know about you - but I was 10-11 when the Continuing Churches broke away, principally over WO - so I lacked even the driver’s license to leave!  My view of what the Continuum has done since then (and I will expect the incoming fire from Fr. Wells) is that it has been a very poor witness - fragmenting immediately and continuing to do so into multiple tiny pieces, with motivations that appear to be principally over personality and power.

This is what I’m afraid of if the orthodox split.  Our brethren have been down this path before.  Everything we’re talking about now has been done before, and it’s failed (in my opinion).

Today, of course, we have some critical advantages that could ensure things go differently: namely, the internet/global communications and support from the Global South and even, possibly, Canterbury itself.

I’m as concerned with making sure we have our own stuff in a row as I am with lining up Canterbury’s support.  What bothers me about Dallas’ actions is that, here again, even directly under the gun, the orthodox cannot follow a common path and present a unified face to the Communion in saying, “help us.”  I don’t want to see us leave ECUSA and do what the Continuum did, not just to avoid the schandenfreude on ECUSA’s part, but because it would be a mockery of Christ’s call to unity.  In other words, I think the time has come to separate from ECUSA, but we must do it in such a way that we are in communion with somebody other than ourselves.

Matt, this is a fine essay.  I come around to the same point that I have made in previous forays here - when is it right for individual parishes to choose for themselves what bishop they will serve under?  In addition to this, is the church or Christ well-served by individual churches, particularly in one heretical diocese like ours, opting for a myriad of arrangements (AMIA, Convocation 7, CANA, or something else)?

Hi Matt—a great article!  I especially love the first half of it and the methodical structuring of definitions of “church”.

I think I disagree with you about One Big Thing—I think you have completelly misread the cause of the disagreement between the “leave” or “stay” folks.  I think that misread is already represented in the comments above.

I’m an evangelical, and am not remotely Anglo-Catholic.  Yet I believe that it is best—until such time as the ABC/Primates pronounce regarding discipline of ECUSA [yea or nay]—to remain within the Anglican Communion.  I understand that some are fine with simply being overseen by bishops within the AC, yet not directly in communion with Canterbury [although as I’ve made clear I think that the AC gets to define its rules and its rules are clear about who is within and who is without—1) recognized by Canterbury as members and thus invited to the Lambeth Conference, 2) one recognized entity within one geographic region, with a few exceptions like the Churches in Europe].

My decision to stay has precisely ZERO to do with the “historic episcopate” and indeed the historic episcopate has nothing to do with being “tied to an historic see” like Canterbury.  The historic episcopate—the apostolic succession—for even the most devout Anglo-Catholic can continue just fine without the need to remain in communion with Canterbury.  Thus the Anglo-Catholics were able to leave the Communion and develop their Continuing churches in the 1970s with no problems theologically regarding their affirmation of the historic episcopate—some have maintained scrupulously their theological vision of the apostolic succession with no connection with Canterbury.

No, the reason why I have the desire to stay—in common with my Anglo-Catholic clergy friends—is because of something else we have in common other than notions about the “historic episcopate” [we don’t have that theology in common].

It’s a deep foundational realization that once the “center does not hold”, the nature of Protestantism is to keep on dividing and splintering in order to achieve more purity.

Because the divisions between the “stay” and “leave” crowds have nothing to do with apostolic succession and the historic episcopate—and thus cut across the old lines of “Anglo-Catholic” and “evangelical” I actually agree with your last lines: “. . . the present roiling debates within the orthodox camp are deeply rooted in core principles. It does not at all bode well for the future of orthodox Anglicanism.”

I have a feeling that the divisions will not be played out at all between Anglo-Catholics and evangelicals, but between the “stay” and “go” groups and those groups do not necessarily agree about the nature of the historic episcopate, but do agree about the foundational problems with Protestantism.

I know that in my own decision making, my deep belief is that Anglicanism will not survive without some sort of “visible center” to hold together the rather bizarre groupings that are emerging within the Network and the Common Cause partners.  I have equally as little in common with some of the churches that are emerging as Anglican but not in communion with Canterbury as I do with many liberal parishes within ECUSA, and I have equally as little respect for some Anglican leaders outside of ECUSA as I do with some within ECUSA.  In my conversations with other clergy and laity, I discover the same beliefs.

Thus the divide will be between those who wish the Anglican Communion [as currently constructed] to be decently boundaried and ordered and those who really don’t care and believe that they can cobble together disparate theologies and practices together into some other communion, sans a center.

Sarah,

” The historic episcopate—the apostolic succession—for even the most devout Anglo-Catholic can continue just fine without the need to remain in communion with Canterbury. “

I would agree with the “can continue” but disagree with the “just fine”. I think it pains those Anglo-catholics who have left a great deal to be out of communion with a historic see. Many who have left (the TAC for example) do while, of course in apostolic succession, do not at all think it a good thing to be left hanging so to speak without connection with an historic see. That is one reason they seek unity with Rome. I maintain my assertion that while apostolic succession continues unhindered without ties to an historic see, the historic episcopate in most AC eyes is incomplete without some communion connection to some historic see.

“It’s a deep foundational realization that once the “center does not hold”, the nature of Protestantism is to keep on dividing and splintering in order to achieve more purity.”

Given that you agreed with or found the first part of my article helpful, can you see why this is not as big a problem for many evangelicals? A Church is any institution that bears the three marks. This is not to say the multitude of divisions is “good”. In so far as they represent acrimonious departures over minor issues they are bad. But while the bible is very clear about unnecessary divisions, staying within a church that is no longer a church is not preventing an “unnecessary” division.

In fact, a Reformed thinker might point out that as far as “the Church” goes, the AMiA is far more clearly a manifestation of the church than ECUSA at this point. So leaving is staying.

You might see this is as a core weakness of protestantism, and it is when divisions come over minor matters, but when major apostasies and heresies arise in a given manifestation of the Church, the organic nature of this understanding of the Church it is a great strength. The fall of an institution into heresy never destroys the Church.

OK, anglocatholic-evangelical differences I can put up with. High church-low church differences I put up with. I can live with differences over altar arrangements, candles, incense, vestments and a lot of other things. What I can’t live with is the postmodern, universalist, anything goes, revisionist theological garbage being force fed to us by the powers-that-be of TEC/ECUSA. Maybe everything can be worked out, maybe not. I hope it can. Whether I will still be around is the question. I probably don’t have that much time left in this world and I would, at the very least, like to be buried from a church whose theology doesn’t make me sick.

the snarkster

Eclipse,

If you are where I think you are, your AMiA visitor was a precious friend, who, because of postings on VOL last year, was my presenter for diaconal ordination in South Dakota in December.
He told me at a conference in Casper, that he was planning some ‘forays’ into MT, to help ‘spread the word’.  Tom is ‘good people’, he and the AMiA group in WY/CO are the closest Anglican associates that our mission has right now, and we treasure their support and prayers.
I have been through the ‘mutual ministry’ program of the Diocese of SD, but left before ordination, so I am also well aware of ways to help small congregations and clusters survive (even tho’ ours is still a very small ‘house church’.
God bless you in Big Sky Country!
Chip

snarkster,

Amen, and Amen!

Yesterday, Bp. Duncan addressed Nashotah upon receiving an honorary doctorate.  He had the interesting comments below (from Drell).  At least for those seeking coverage from overseas primates and the common cause partners, I sense implicit agreement with Bp. Duncan’s words here.  None of these efforts hold themselves out as a new province - but only a temporary mission.  (Note: his reference to diocesan boundaries refers to those of ECUSA)

Diocesan boundaries are lost forever, at least in the United States. Resistance by American progressives to early suggestions of ways to accommodate conservatives in progressive dioceses (as well as progressives in conservative dioceses) (11) have led to situations in which multiple Anglican jurisdictions now operate in the same territory. Prior to the Singapore consecrations of January 2000, there were, of course, multiple Continuing Church and Reformed Episcopal Church jurisdictions operating within what were Episcopal Church dioceses. But between 2001 and 2006, multiple Anglican Communion jurisdictions have come to operate in the same domestic spheres. Rwanda, Uganda, Central Africa, Kenya, Southern Cone and Nigeria all have significant congregations within U.S. dioceses, and more join them daily. Other presences from the Diocese of London to the Province of Korea are less well documented. The embrace of affinity relationships, rather than geographical location, as the organizing principle of the Anglican Mission in America, has also offered an intentional alternative to classic assumptions about diocesan structure. Things will never return to the simplicity of one Anglican bishop having authority over one Anglican territory. What was lost by the whole of Western Christendom at the Reformation of the 16th Century has now been lost by Anglicanism in the Reformation of the 21st Century.

The danger in what is taking place is immense. The competitive denominationalism that characterized the Christian Church for most of the last five centuries could as easily come to characterize intra-Anglican relationships, particularly in North America. But North American rivalries and conflicts are soon enough transported to the rest of the Anglican world. The Anglican Communion Network has striven to avoid this outcome, but whether its labors will finally succeed is still to be played out.

Can we limit our love affair with freedom? Can we choose – both clergy and congregations – the common good over more self-interested opportunity? The sorrows of having a bishop five thousand miles away (limiting episcopal ministry) may be found to be outweighed by the joys of having a bishop five thousand miles away (limiting episcopal accountability.) The independence of being the only one of our kind anywhere nearby may prove seductive when compared to the hassle of regional expectations for joint mission when there are several connected congregations. The temptations of American “assessments” flowing into the treasuries of economically-challenged Global South dioceses or provinces is also a factor militating against a quick end to Anglicanism’s increasing Balkanization. The late Paul Moore of New York used to be fond of describing the Episcopal Church as “a catholic church in love with freedom.” The longer we embrace our freedoms, the less catholic we shall prove to be. Whether we shall permanently live in Anglican silos labeled AMiA or Kenya or Anglican Province in America or Windsor or fill-in-the-blank remains to be seen. Will we choose the common good when push comes to shove? The future of Anglicanism will depend on our answer, both individually and corporately. Forty years of domestic Balkanization among conservative Anglicans point to the tremendous change of heart that must overtake us.

Matt,

This is a superb piece you have written!  I am not as bleak about our future as you seem to be but I believe you have articulated the basis for our differing perspectives very cogently.  Kudos

Perhaps I have had a sheltered life, or perhaps I remain in a state of invincible ignorance.  But never have I read, nor has the thought ever crossed my mind, that communion with “the hallowed See of Canterbury” is the touchstone of Catholicity.  I do confess, indeed, that separation from the See of Rome troubles me deeply, and I do not believe our catholicity will be perfect until that separation is healed.  For the present, I justify that separation on a doctrinal basis (i. e., the NT doctrine of Justification and corollary doctrines of Atonement, Merit, Indulgences and Purgatory).  But Canterbury? Surely you jest.  The Anglican Communion?  Who needs it?  The Universal Church with its threefold apostolic ministry was up and running for 500 years before there was a bishop at Canterbury.  The preponderance of the Christian community today does not even recognize Anglican orders as valid.  I respectfully submit: Anglicanism as an expression of orthodox Christianity will not become viable until the neurotic addiction to Canterbury and the AC is sluffed off and forgotten about.

I’m beginning to be unsure about the idea that staying in communion with Canterbury is the only viable goal.  I’m not yet against it, but as time and communication passes by, its becoming quite apparent that the CoE, at least, is in almost as much turmoil as we are. And, the ABC is not particularly handling his own “family” all that well. (Something in the requirement for a bishop about that isn’t there? lol).

Not terribly long ago, more than a few folks were expecting +++RW to “rescue” us.  I think theres not a chance in hrll.  I hope I’m completely wrong.

I’m pretty sure the Primates have made it clear, unless we show some willingness to get off the boat, no rescue is forthcoming.

I can’t help thinking of God looking down at this poorly choreographed “dance”..

Bishops come out, whirling, and spinning like dervishes,sometimes two at a time. Others come forward swaying, first to the right, then the left.
Each doing their own version of the “gospel ballet”.

Sometimes, some of the audience applauds, first here, then there. But NEVER a standing ovation, mostly just curiosity as to what each will do next.  In the meantime, some of the audience straggles out, unable to make sense of much of the program.

We are the audience.  God gave us a program long ago. But, apparently it was not good enough for some of the “stars”, so they put their own interpretation on it. I can see even HE, and the saints shaking their heads in dispair at our human error.

I wonder when the “hooks” will come out and jerk some off the stage, or will the curtain just come down on the AC?  Some will stick around and wait, other’s will not.  BUT, I have a feeling that those who wait for the finale, will be hugely disappointed when God decides the performance is over.

Blessings anyway,
Grannie Gloria

It is said above that TEC values “apostolic succession” or the idea of it—and it does seem to do so, at least as it affects boundaries and the HOB; yet revisionist clergy I’ve known have scoffed and laughed at the supposed “fiction” of “apostolic succession,” taking pleasure in pointing out the many breaks they claim in the chain!  I know for a fact that this has happened even in confirmation classes!  (It’s a wonder the church can recruit at all.)  I believe there are national TEC leaders who would openly teach that the value of the apostolic link is only part of a prestigious myth, one of the badges of power.  How does this fit into the thesis offered? Perhaps the only ones who REALLY care about the Apostolic Succession are the Anglo-Catholics and the Evangelicals who are both chafing at TEC, both concerned with essence and not husk.  This is a certain incalculable bond between the two faithful groups, and there must be much hope in this fact. Yet I think there is a great deal of wisdom in the things you say, Matt; this longtime “fault line” was experienced in some form by every generation.  From group 1, it is not easy to think like group 4.

Re: “I would agree with the “can continue” but disagree with the “just fine”. I think it pains those Anglo-catholics who have left a great deal to be out of communion with a historic see. Many who have left (the TAC for example) do while, of course in apostolic succession, do not at all think it a good thing to be left hanging so to speak without connection with an historic see.”

I agree with you that many Anglicans would like to be in communion with Canterbury—but I do not agree with you that there longing as anything to do with apostolic succession or the historic episcopate.  It has to do with a belief that catholicity is at least *closer* when one connects with the larger body [of whatever that is] and to a belief that they were forced to fragment when they did believe in a more visible unity.  Again—the commonality between the [many] evangelical Anglicans and the Anglo-Catholics who do not wish to leave the connection with Canterbury has nothing to do with the historic episcopate or apostolic succession.  I think your analysis would greatly improve if you accepted that fact and moved to discover what the commonality is between those two groups who wish to stay in communion with Canterbury.

RE: “But while the bible is very clear about unnecessary divisions, staying within a church that is no longer a church is not preventing an “unnecessary” division.”

So are you saying that the Anglican Communion is no longer a church, Matt, or just ECUSA?  That’s *precisely* what all the comments, back and forth, between the stayers and leavers are for.  The stayers wish for the Anglican Communion to demonstrate discipline of its Christian identity.  If the Anglican Communion does so, then it reveals the mark of a true church.  If it does not do so, then it is no true church and it’s every man for himself.

RE: “The fall of an institution into heresy never destroys the Church.”

Sure—but we’re waiting on one larger institution, the Anglican Communion, to correct the smaller institution, the ECUSA.  This is a natural principle of Matthew 18 as well.  We have worked our way up the ladder of hierarchy and we now find ourselves at the largest body possible to ask for discipline of the smaller erring member.

I do ultimately agree with you that the differences between the “stayers” and “leavers” are pretty large, Matt, and I don’t know that they will be bridgeable.  I have the sense, as I’ve stated before, that should the larger body prove itself not a church, that the “stayers” will simply depart mostly to other non-Anglican entities.  And the “leavers” will have already departed to their Anglican entities.

And there we are . . .

If I am right (and I do hope I am not) then the present roiling debates within the orthodox camp are deeply rooted in core principles. It does not at all bode well for the future of orthodox Anglicanism.

This has always been a problem for the orthodox: When there is no one else to fight, we fight each other. My opinion is that we should make what compromises are necessary between the orthodox and get on with it. A few compromises would be worth it to get out of TEC/ECUSA.

the snarkster

“‘...diocese [is] the “basic unit of the church,’ Brookhart said”
That’s from the Bp. of Montana’s convention address (pulled from T19).  It is not as deep an ecclesiological question as that of communion with Canterbury, but it is a strong dividing point between reasserters, who tend to see the local congregation and impact on people as the primary place where mission is done, and reappraisers, who use phrases like Brookhart’s to espouse institutionalism and see mission as resolutions of support for causes. 
Here, too, I think Anglicanism (or at least the debased forms it takes) is done in by a lack of core theology.  A diocese or other judicatory body that promotes the faith, gets resources to congregations and trains and deploys faithful, missionary clergy is a wonderful thing.  Sydney rubs many the wrong way, but a visit to their web portal can be quite inspiring.

Sarah.

“I agree with you that many Anglicans would like to be in communion with Canterbury—but I do not agree with you that there longing as anything to do with apostolic succession or the historic episcopate.”

I was speaking specifically in the context of our exchange re: anglo-catholics. I maintain the distinction I made originally. Apostolic succession can continue without connection to a historic see, but catholicity is seen by many AC’s to be incomplete until connected to one. Canterbury was established directly from Rome by St. Augustine of C. It is one of the primary western sees. To many Anglo-catholics this connection, while (as I have noted) not essential to apostolic succession, is a very very big deal. Many consider catholicity incomplete without it. It means far more than just gathering “a bigger group”.

“So are you saying that the Anglican Communion is no longer a church, Matt, or just ECUSA?”

For the moment, just TEC and Canada.
After Feb, who knows.

As for your application of Matthew 18, I would suggest that it is a bit off.

If a wolf is destroying sheep in the pasture, the first move, is to kill the wolf. If this proves impossible, you send for help. But if the help is going to take a while to get there, you don’t wait around. You get out and get your sheep to safety.

Grannie G said,

” unless we show some willingness to get off the boat, no rescue is forthcoming.” 

When Simon Peter had his famous ‘walking on the water’ bit in the Gospels, he first had to get out of the boat.  I don’t see any less required of us today, and if we are truly expecting the Lord to support our walk, we have to get out of the boat.

I don’t mind telling you, it is a scary situation to be ‘out of the boat’ as I now am; but we, in our little mission, over 500 miles from any one else in our life raft, and 1200 miles from our bishop, pray that it will be worth it in the end, and that we really did hear His voice telling us to get out and walk.

Re: “I was speaking specifically in the context of our exchange re: anglo-catholics. I maintain the distinction I made originally. Apostolic succession can continue without connection to a historic see, but catholicity is seen by many AC’s to be incomplete until connected to one.”

And I was speaking specifically in the context of our exchange about apostolic succession and the historic episcopate—you know, what you talked about in your article!  I note that now you have substituted “catholicity” which is a far broader term.  If you had used *that* term in your article rather than “historic episcopate” and “apostolic succession” than I could have more agreed with you—but then, you would not have had the nice little division between “anglo-catholics” and “evangelicals”.  ; > )

Re: “If a wolf is destroying sheep in the pasture, the first move, is to kill the wolf. If this proves impossible, you send for help. But if the help is going to take a while to get there, you don’t wait around. You get out and get your sheep to safety.”

“Wolf” is a nice metaphor—but then, all false teachers are “wolves” and it is clear that there is a steady stairstep of discipline within the church outlined in scripture.  The “help” will *always* take too long, as any *one moment* sitting under false teaching is a bad thing.  One moment is “too long”.

If you mean that “too long” is “too long for Matt Kennedy’s comfort and thinking about wolves” than that’s fine.  But “too long” is just too vague and generalized.  What are you thinking of here?  One month?  One week?  A year?  A decade? How about 30 years?  Or 45?  [Which is about how long it’s been, but *NOW* is “too long” for some.]

Matt your divide is not between Anglo-Catholics and evangelicals.  It’s much bigger and broader and denial about the divide being about much more than Anglo-Catholics and evangelicals merely hinders your usually great analysis.

Matt’s article is splendid.

Let’s keep this turmoil about ecclesiology in perspective. At the end of the day,  the different human theological understandings of how the Church exists and “works” as the body of Christ, and the various ecclesiologies that result therefrom, are not the point. The point is that God wants to save each of our souls. Church juridical structures are not ends in themselves. They exist to help save people’s souls by bringing them into relationship with Christ.

Of course it is disorienting to live in a “Reformation age” when all the familiar landmarks are falling and being replaced or renewed.

But there is a silver lining in all this. This Reformation is forcing us to think about our faith in and relationship with Christ. We are also being forced to think about how our relationship with God is affected by our human relationships as a body of Christians, and our church ecclesiology. These are good things.

I sometimes visit the websites of our Worthy Opponents. If you go there you will notice at once that there are few discussions about relationships with God or among ourselves as Christians. On those sites discussion is mainly about power, money, and their antipathy to us. I would rather be in an invisible Church with muddled, chaotic ecclesiology, than in a denomination, such as TEC, with clear ecclesiology but spiritual death.

Sarah,

Not avoiding anything. You responded to my article with a comment specific to AC’ss

“The historic episcopate—the apostolic succession—for even the most devout Anglo-Catholic can continue just fine without the need to remain in communion with Canterbury.”

I responded specifically with regard to AC’s and now you say I am shifting the discussion? Also, the historic epsicopate is a broader term than “apostolic succession” which, incidentally, is why many AC’s balked at its use in the Quadrilateral. It could let in those nasty Lutherans. The reason I think many AC’s would say the historic episcopate is lacking something when not tied to an historic see is because the focus of the historic episcopate is on the unbroken unity of the catholic faith not only in the past but in the present as well. That unity is represented by the bishops of the church. Apostolic succession is part of that unity, but not the sum of it.

As for the wolf metaphor, it fits perfectly within the realm of Matt 18. Let’s say the sinner in Matt 18 is someone who is abusing his family physically. You ought not wait to go through all three steps of discipline before advising the wife and kids to leave.

How much abusive is a church full of wolves, a heretic church that devours souls?

wait for the process of Matt 18 before finding safety? No get out first, then continue the process.

I think that those in orthodox dioceses are in safe pastures for the time being. But not for long. For those in heretic I think the time to negotiate is now (as +Duncan noted in his conference speech in July)

And we are back at congregationalism, even if it is suggested by a bishop.

sure, if you believe staying in a heretic sect is the more catholic option

Chip:

Rats!  Been found out!!  No, as we are now one of two (the other just came into being a few weeks ago) Anglican bodies in Montana now (we’ve just been around since August) - it’s not too hard to track us down.  Yes, Fr. Tom is SERIOUSLY cool.  We were so blessed by his visit with us and loved the new Eucharistic form he taught.  I think that has been the most encouraging thing since we had to break away from our original Ep. parish - that we are not alone.  Up ‘till July, it seemed like us alone against a revisionist diocese which actively disliked and slighted us at every turn.  We spent years fighting that loosing battle and we felt very isolated.  Ever since we made the commitment to stay with the majority of the communion, we are no longer isolated or alone… it’s been such a blessing.

I am so glad to know you all are in S D!  We need to stick together… the few - the proud…. you can find our website at butteanglican.org - so if you’re ever in our neck of the woods… please let us know.
Timothy:

Where in the world did you get B. Brookhart’s address?  I have been searching for it (idle curiousity - thanks be to God).

Matt:

  So, what you are saying is that if the orthodox leave ECUSA, then it will basically be ‘lost’.  Do I understand you correctly? 

If I understand that perspective correctly, then my only point is that even with orthodox it’s been getting pretty lost.  It’s like trying to bail water out of the Titanic - after the iceberg.  I think you are saying the same thing - but I want to be clear.

Well, so we have these differing perspectives on the church in Anglicanism.  Isn’t part of that due our limited information on the church?  One of the things our former pastor did when we first joined our church was offer a course on Anglicanism.  It explains ‘the church universal and all those ‘anglo-catholic’ concepts.  He did a great job and so did our assistant pastor when he came - as a matter of fact, if it weren’t for his genuine Anglican faith, I probably wouldn’t of stayed Anglican.  So, education is a great thing - says this particular former S. Baptist.

Tinpipes, there is, and will be, a need for good preachers and dynamic leaders among the departing Anglican parishes, Priest that are not scared of becoming persona non grata in TEC. Make your choice.

Thanks, Matt for a very insightful essay.

I am tossing this out more as a “Devil’s Advocate” sort of thing, but it is a question that intrigues me, so here goes:

What defines a “historic see”? 

Do we believe that Canterbury is on par with say, Antioch in terms of historical and/or ecclesiastical importance?  If it is, then why can’t Abuja or Kigali make a similar claim?  If it isn’t, then why is a Nigeria-based communion of churches less catholic than an England-based communion?

It would seem that the basis for upholding the Canterbury-centered Communion is not so much catholicism per se, but honoring historic ties and roots.  This, by the way, is not a bad thing.  I am merely thinking out loud here—what is the true status of +Cantuar as a Patriarch in the Universal Church?  How should we understand the importance of Canterbury as a see?

Bob Hackendorf
St. Andrew’s in the Valley (AMiA)
Syracuse NY

Eclipse:

“So, what you are saying is that if the orthodox leave ECUSA, then it will basically be ‘lost’.  Do I understand you correctly?”

No, ECUSA is, IMO, a dead branch. Those in orthodox dioceses may have reason to remain to support orthodox bishops etc… but for others, there is no obligation. TEC is no longer a Church.

My article is more of a lament than an appeal. Take Tony above. I believe, and Tony please correct me if I am wrong, you would place yourself in 1 and/or 2? I am in 4 although it would be nice to be 2. I am lamenting that this orthodox divide is real and that it puts Tony et al on one side and me on another, when in truth we are part of the Body.

Bob+,
Interesting question. Canterbury is directly from Rome. I think that sets it apart from say Abuja (though not Alexandria) were you to rank it. The problem is that the ABC’s lineage is unbroken all the way back to Augustine. You can’t say the same for the others. Alexandria, I believe, still has a sitting Orthodox (or Coptic) patriarch in the direct apostolic lineage. An Anglican primate, even sitting in Alexandria, would not combine the historic see with direct succession. His succession would be through Canterbury.

As for me personally, I don’t think any of that comes near trumping the first mark of the church and would be willing to break with Canterbury or any other see that does not fulfill that mark.

“sure, if you believe staying in a heretic sect is the more catholic option”

What a strange thing to say from someone who went to a seminary with a lesbian living with her lover teaching homiletics.

I think you might need to reread your church history concerning heretics and the church.  It didn’t start in the 20th century.

Actually, I am not convinced that being tied to Canterbury is essential.  Bishops in apostolic succession teaching apostolic doctrine is essential.

Just to clear that up…I was not “with” them. In fact the prof in question did not start teaching until the year after I left.

But VTS did have its share of false teachers.  Tony, we’ve had this conversation.  Heresy unofficially believed and proclaimed by heretics within a body is a different matter than an official adoption of heresy by the body itself.

Matt, as I go back to re-examine our earlier exchange, I am still puzzled over the leap from “Anglo Catholics care about apostolic succesion and that’s why they want to stay in the Anglican Communion” to “Anglo-Catholics care about catholicity and that’s what I was saying all along.”

Here’s my summary of our comment thread:

SARAH SAID: “The historic episcopate—the apostolic succession—for even the most devout Anglo-Catholic can continue just fine without the need to remain in communion with Canterbury.”

[summary: apostolic succession can exist without see]

MATT SAID: “I would agree with the “can continue” but disagree with the “just fine”. I think it pains those Anglo-catholics who have left a great deal to be out of communion with a historic see. Many who have left (the TAC for example) do while, of course in apostolic succession, do not at all think it a good thing to be left hanging so to speak without connection with an historic see.”

[summary: apostolic succession can exist without see—but would be nice to have see]

SARAH SAID: “I agree with you that many Anglicans would like to be in communion with Canterbury—but I do not agree with you that there longing as anything to do with apostolic succession or the historic episcopate.”

[summary: longing for see is not the same as theology requiring apostolic succession]

THEN MATT SAID: “I was speaking specifically in the context of our exchange re: anglo-catholics. I maintain the distinction I made originally. Apostolic succession can continue without connection to a historic see, but catholicity is seen by many AC’s to be incomplete until connected to one.”

[summary: catholicity important]

????

It appears to me that you have developed an old switcheroo.  What am I missing here?

Here is my summary of my argument:

—Apostolic succession is not the same as catholicity.

—Anglo-Catholics desire both apostolic succession and catholicity.

—Evangelicals mostly desire [if either] catholicity and not apostolic succession [as rigorously defined by Anglo-Catholics].

—Both Anglo-Catholics and many evangelicals desire to remain in communion with the see of Canterbury.

ERGO: The thing that Anglo-Catholics and evangelicals have in common with one another in their desire to remain in communion with the see of Canterbury is their desire for catholicity, NOT their theological need for apostolic succession.

Matt:  I fully agree with you about the issue of Ecclesiology and also feel Group 4, as you describe it,
reflects the understanding of the Early Church Fathers and Councils.  They affirmed that the heretic bishop is no bishop at all and has lost his authority.  Whatever happens in the Anglican Communion, its Ecclesiology must again become a vital point of discussion.

“Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven.

27And this word, Yet once more, signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain.”  Hebrews 12:25-27

Americans are pragmatist.  If it works it is true and if I doesn’t work it must not be true.  So called apostolic succession has proven that it does not produce catholic faith of the Apostles.  Doctrinal Apostolic succession is what is valid and not a holy handshake physical contraption that producs a Spong, VGR, and ECUSA.  The Church of the Scriptures is marching on just fine, thank you withour it.  I believe the Lord is forcefully teaching Episcopalians and others this now.  Sarah is right in that the chrch Catholic must have a center, but it is not a geopraphic center but a spiritual center with The Lord Jesus Christ the center and is seated in the heavenlies.  As long as you are saddled with this non scriptual notion about apostolic succession, you will continue to suffer.  God does not bless it.  Like it or not, even if you don’t agree, I am in The Catholic Church and in communion with all true believers all over the world and in heaven.  IMHO

Re: “Sarah is right in that the chrch Catholic must have a center, but it is not a geopraphic center but a spiritual center with The Lord Jesus Christ the center and is seated in the heavenlies.”

But PM—you are a confessed and happy congregationalist.  OF COURSE you can afford to just sweep your hand and say “the center is Jesus”—thus begging the question of how a larger grouping than a single congregation can hold together around the statement “the center is Jesus”. 

Furthermore, ECUSA will happily agree with you that “the center is Jesus”.

No—for a *physical church no matter the size* there must be a physical center.

A congregational church must have a “place to congregate”, otherwise it is only an *invisible* church and not a visible “congregation”.  A Communion must have a “place to commune with that is common”.  It’s all very well for you to say that the “in common” thing is “Jesus”—but that gets us back to single congregations in no visible unity whatsoever with anything else other than “me and my Jesus”.

Even the most reformed of Anglicans here will not, I think, go with merely “me and my Jesus”—although of course, one never knows these days.

THEN MATT SAID: “I was speaking specifically in the context of our exchange re: anglo-catholics. I maintain the distinction I made originally. Apostolic succession can continue without connection to a historic see, but catholicity is seen by many AC’s to be incomplete until connected to one.”

[summary: catholicity important]

Okay, now I think I see where I made a mistake. I should not have used the word catholicity here. I should have maintained my use of the words “historic episcopate” as in my last response to you above where I said:

“The reason I think many AC’s would say the historic episcopate is lacking something when not tied to an historic see is because the focus of the historic episcopate is on the unbroken unity of the catholic faith not only in the past but in the present as well. That unity is represented by the bishops of the church. Apostolic succession is part of that unity, but not the sum of it.”

Moreover I think your summary:
“ERGO: The thing that Anglo-Catholics and evangelicals have in common with one another in their desire to remain in communion with the see of Canterbury is their desire for catholicity, NOT their theological need for apostolic succession.”

does not actually contradict mine so long as you attend to the words “tend to”:

“In any case, as you may have noticed these four groups, generally speaking, are largely distinguished by their understanding of catholicity. Anglo-catholics (at least those who did not depart in the aftermath of women’s ordination) tend to fall into group 1 and Reformed/evangelical Anglicans seem to fall somewhere in the latter 3.”

I do not think it disputable that group 1:
“1. Some argue that the Communion tie to Canterbury is a fundamental mark of catholicity. So long as the Episcopal Church is bound to and in communion with Canterbury breaking from her is unthinkable.”

embraces a less reformed and more anglo-catholic understanding of catholicity than groups 3 or 4.

Of course, I was not arguing that if you fall in group 1 it necessarily means you are not an evangelical. It does mean that on this question you have fallen into the a least classically evangelical of the 4 groups.

Matt, I don’t see your distinction about heresy official or unofficial in the New Testament nor in the early church.  Please direct me to the source from which you get this view.  For example, Paul seems to launch on churches based on heresy in their midst, from wherever the source of the heresy.

Re: “Okay, now I think I see where I made a mistake. I should not have used the word catholicity here. I should have maintained my use of the words “historic episcopate” . . .

Okay.

Then in that case, I think I understand.

However, inherent within your categories are no options for evangelicals.  For example I do not believe that breaking from Canterbury is the best option.  Therefore, from your perspective, I would fall into Group 1.  However your category of Group 1 states this: “Some argue that the Communion tie to Canterbury is a fundamental mark of catholicity. So long as the Episcopal Church is bound to and in communion with Canterbury breaking from her is unthinkable.”

But that is not the reason why I do not believe that the best option is breaking from Canterbury.

So again—your various categories *PRESUPPOSE* that the debate between the “stayers” and the “leavers” are those of Anglo-Catholic versus evangelical theologies.

That is an incorrect analysis of the differences between the “stayers” and the leavers”. 

Again—I agree with you that the differences between the stayers and the leavers reveal very large, and perhaps unfixable fault lines. 

But those fault lines are not about Anglo-Catholic or evangelical theology.  They cut across both AC’s and evangelicals.

What a red herring. The NT does not make many distinctions that we do. The point is applying NT principles

So Tony, lets take this down to the local level. If you are in a parish with alot of heretics in it, say the majority, but the official stance of the parish is orthodox, would you run away or try to get into the leadership? I think it is a fair call either way. YOu can get into leadership and perhaps preserve the parish.

But if the parish is Mormon and or some other heretic cult that has, as a matter of doctrine proclaimed itself to be non-Christian, there is a clear reason to stay away unless you are a missionary. You definitely would not want to send your kids to Sunday school there.

Do you really see no difference between a Christian body or denomination that has alot of heretics and a heretic body? It’s not that difficult a distinction to make?

Re: “As for the wolf metaphor, it fits perfectly within the realm of Matt 18. Let’s say the sinner in Matt 18 is someone who is abusing his family physically. You ought not wait to go through all three steps of discipline before advising the wife and kids to leave.

How much abusive is a church full of wolves, a heretic church that devours souls?

wait for the process of Matt 18 before finding safety? No get out first, then continue the process.”

Ah, this is another huge area of disagreement.

There is no part of Paul that says “get out” imediately.  Instead he says “expel them from your midst”.

It is exactly that process of “expelling them from our midst” that the Anglican Communion is working through.  The question before the house is: “will they or won’t they”.  If they do not discipline, then the question is moot—traditional Episcopalians will leave and scatter to varying denominations, various Primates will depart, and the Anglican Communion will eventually be no more.

“Presuppose.” Well, not really. I would be happy to include a 5th category of people who want to stay tied to canterbury because they do not want to multiply divisions in the body.

In which case, I do not see that it would not hinder my conclusion? I still think the fault lines shake out basically along the classic anglo-catholic-evangelical lines.

“There is no part of Paul that says “get out” imediately.  Instead he says “expel them from your midst”.”

Of course, you are speaking about a church. I do not think the Episicopal church is a church any longer having officially adopted heresy and become apostate.

Paul nowhere says, hang out in the Temple of Astarte and take part in the sacrifices made to demons (1 Cor 10)

RE: “I still think the fault lines shake out basically along the classic anglo-catholic-evangelical lines.”

Yes, I know that you prefer to believe that.

But your preference does not make it so, Matt.  Many many many evangelicals are orthodox and do not intend to leave the communion any time soon, and do not make this decision based on “anglo-catholic” theology.

Your desire to see the issue as along those fault lines rather than other theological fault lines hinders your analysis, Matt.

But you’re welcome to continue being hindered, since that is what you need in order to understand why some evangelicals do not wish to leave and others do.

Re: “Of course, you are speaking about a church.”

Yes—the Anglican Communion.  Remember?  That part of the Christian body that is higher up on the authority rung than ECUSA?

The Matthew 18 principle?

What I was talking about at the beginning?

Sarah says:

It is exactly that process of “expelling them from our midst” that the Anglican Communion is working through.  The question before the house is: “will they or won’t they”.  If they do not discipline, then the question is moot—traditional Episcopalians will leave and scatter to varying denominations, various Primates will depart, and the Anglican Communion will eventually be no more.

I have been meaning to ask you a question, ever since your last post in re Camp Allen and aftermath. I believe you stated that if the Anglican Communion splits - i.e. the Global South finds itself no longer willing to be yoked to Canterbury because the Communion failed to discipline - then you would not be willing to join a smaller “Global South Anglican Communion.”  Rather you would go to some evangelical denomination. [I hope I read you correctly.] But here is my question: Why not join with a smaller but still global Anglican-like structure, centered in Abuja or Alexandria, or wherever?  Perhaps you explained in your previous post, but I might have missed it amongst all the responses, etc.

Thanks!

Sarah,

“Many many many evangelicals are orthodox and do not intend to leave the communion any time soon, and do not make this decision based on “anglo-catholic” theology.”

Among those bound and determined to stick with Canterbury come what may you will find far more who understand the Church in AC terms than you will those who understand it in evangelical terms. This is not because I “need” or “prefer” to see it that way, That is simply the way I “think” it is. I may be wrong and so might you. But I don’t question your inner motives for disagreeing with me Sarah. I will not do that. There is no reason to question my motives either. thanks

It seems our exchange has come to the point where you are just saying “no it is not” v. my “yes it is.”

TEC is no longer a church. Whether the AC steps in or not, that fact remains.

Sarah,

It came as a great surprise to me to find that Matt had me placed in the AC camp.  Heck, I’m about as non-AC as they get (yeah women’s ordination, yeah U2-charist, yeah rockin’ guitars, yeah informal but neat attire) (of course maybe I’m just clueless about what is or isn’t AC but that’s another story). 

That being said, I think there is some truth to Matt’s argument that the AC-Evangelical divide influences how people respond to these current events.  In particular, I have found that my AMiA friends are quick to disassociate from any structured hierarchy (sp).  The big AMiA parishes around here are struggling with requests from their new overseas bishop.  To me, that is part and parcel of the evangelical mindset (Matt, would you agree?)

Of course, I think there is also some truth to our argument that the current divide is also influenced over how individuals approach your question of stategery.  To me, getting out now is a strategically flawed idea, especially since we’ve come so far since 2003.  Three years ago, I was telling folks around here that while the TEC could shorten the process by formally walking away at GC2006, any other response by TEC would mean we’d have to wait until Lambeth 2008 to see how things shake out.  I don’t think that is a particularly AC or evangelical perspective; I think it is a practical perspective.

Re: “Among those bound and determined to stick with Canterbury come what may. .. “

Once again you changed my words, Matt.  I did not say “come what may” I said “any time soon”.  A difference that I am sure that you recognize—and yet there you go again.

So, using *my* words, “Among [those who are not leaving Canterbury any time soon] . .. you will [not] find far more who understand the Church in AC terms than you will those who understand it in evangelical terms.”  You will in fact find, among those who are NOT leaving Canterbury any time soon, a vast majority of evangelicals, as in most of the Network dioceses.

And yes, your analysis demands that you see this as an “Anglo-catholic versus evangelical” issue of theology.

It is not.

Re: “But I don’t question your inner motives for disagreeing with me Sarah. I will not do that. There is no reason to question my motives either. thanks”

Yes, Matt, there is reason to question your reasons for insisting on this decision being about “Anglo-Catholic theology versus evangelical”.

And I’m fine with *your* questioning my motives for my arguments—I take no offense at that.  All of us are subject to believing something in part because it is convenient to what we wish.  That’s the nature of human beings.

Re: “It seems our exchange has come to the point where you are just saying “no it is not” v. my “yes it is.”

There we agree.  You think that the majority of those who are staying until such time as they recognize that the ABC will not act to be “AngloCatholic”.  I find that theory to be laughably illogical and self-serving, but you’re welcome to believe it.

Sarah seems to think that congregations can not be in the church catholic unless they are connected to an organization (denomination).  She can poopoo the “me and my Jesus” but I will tell you that our little congregation is connected to the largest Christian organization in history—the apostolic catholic church with it’s headquarters in heaven for now and it’s “pope” sitting on His throne.  We have fellowship and physical contact with a wide variety of Christians—even Episcopalians.  One of the problems with denominationalism is that it erects false walls that cause the adherents to not have fellowship and even knowledge of what is going on in the Body of Christ.  Now is this ineffecient?  No, just look at the tremendous mission work, Christian schools, hospitals, etc. that are now being carried on by independants who work together on these projects.  All told they are greater than any denomination is now doing.  You didn’t know that or disagree?  You prove my point.  We have the Apostles through the Scripture to guide us.  Discipline is carried out on the local level.  It just never seems to get done on a denominational level.  The believers just have to abandon the rotten denomination when it goes south.  So how do we interpret Scripture?  The Holy Spirit interprets it to his children.  The body of believers carry out Mt. 18 and like the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 decide big questions.  (Most of them have been already decided).  I agree that there is too much division between churches, usually over foolish things—-color of the carpet, candles, vestments, personalities—but I don’t see denominations and especially AC/TEC/ECUSA solving any of this.  I certainly don’t want your bishops interpreting Scripture and adjudicating conflicts!  Now, I am not saying that local congregations joining together in organizations is bad and not to be done.  We don’t need to canonize any organization as the only way,  and we must be willing to abandon an organization—even a local congregation—when it is no longer under the Lordship of Christ and subject to His Word.  So I am still glad that I am in the Church Catholic and have all the benefits of such.  I am especially glad that I am free from what you all are being whipsawed by.  IMHO

Re: “TEC is no longer a church.”

The fact that TEC may or may not be a church will be decided by the larger councils of the church—unless, Matt, you have given up on those and just moved on . . . which is fine.

Furthermore, of course, that begs the question of whether a *diocese* or a parish is no longer a church if it is within TEC.  You no doubt will say that such a diocese is no longer a church, but that is precisely what we are now within the Communion arguing over—which is whether a diocese is a unit or the larger province.  The Network bishops have made the claim that *they* are enduring ECUSA. 

We’ll see, I guess.

RE: “Sarah seems to think that congregations can not be in the church catholic unless they are connected to an organization (denomination).”

HUH?  Where on earth did you read that?  I said nothing of the sort.

RE: “She can poopoo the “me and my Jesus” . . . “

That is true.  I do poopoo the “me and my Jesus” mentality.

Re: ” . . . but I will tell you that our little congregation is connected to the largest Christian organization in history—the apostolic catholic church with it’s headquarters in heaven for now and it’s “pope” sitting on His throne.”

That’s great, PM—you like to deal with the church invisible, and single congregations.  That’s fine—I just happen to think that it’s a pretty sad endpoint of the wicked divisions of Protestantism over adiaphora.

Re: “One of the problems with denominationalism is that it erects false walls that cause the adherents to not have fellowship and even knowledge of what is going on in the Body of Christ.”

I disagree—people in denominations have long, long had all sorts of fellowship and knowledge of what’s going on in other bodies.  My own friends within the Episcopal church have visited and attended events in all sorts of other denominations and independent entities over the decades.

Of course . ..  you *may* be saying that those in single congregations may be rather unaware of what is happening within larger denominations . . . ; > )

Re: “No, just look at the tremendous mission work, Christian schools, hospitals, etc. that are now being carried on by independants who work together on these projects.  All told they are greater than any denomination is now doing.”

Sure—but PM, I never denied that.

RE: “You didn’t know that or disagree?”

Huh?  No clue what you are speaking of . . . I’m perfectly aware of all sorts of independent entities who “do things”.

Re: “You prove my point.”

Incoherent and thus unrespondable to . . .

RE: “So how do we interpret Scripture?  The Holy Spirit interprets it to his children.”

Yep—just like with ECUSA’s General Convention and the now hundreds of other little entities who are all hearing the Holy Spirit say different things about the same issues.  Nice . . .

PM—all you have done is provide a polemic about how being congregational in church order is the best.

That’s fine for you to believe that—but I do not.

Flash!  TEC is not a church, AC is not a church—may be a good umbrella and useful organization or not—-we’ll see.  Local parishes that support TEC and its infidelity, apostacy, immorality, abortion may be a church but in rebellion and subject to judgment, or it may be a good church which will mean it will be either expelled form ECUSA or leave on it’s own.  If not the it’s candle stick will be removed and it will wither.  Now that clears all that up.  Aren’t you glad that you have a resident prophet to bring you the truth?... Cheers, PM

RE: “Flash!  TEC is not a church, AC is not a church—may be a good umbrella and useful organization or not—-we’ll see.”

Well . . . that’s what a good congregationalist believes, PM . . . ; > )

PM said

Local parishes that support TEC and its infidelity, apostacy, immorality, abortion may be a church but in rebellion and subject to judgment, or it may be a good church which will mean it will be either expelled form ECUSA or leave on it’s own.

This is true.  Just as it is true that individual congregations or even members of individual congregations that support issues such as abortion in say the Baptists church are in rebellion and short of repentence will be subject to judgement.  You are forgetting that many within ECUSA have taken a stand against the heretical actions and words of ECUSA.  Many of us are able to seek shelter under the umbrella of the Network.  Those less fortunate are having to take individual stands but they are doing so.  Leaving upon God’s call to go is one thing, but leaving to avoid the “mess” is another.  There are no perfect churches out there.  Even the prophets sought repentence of the church from within its borders.  If all the orthodox abandon ship before the call, we will leave a wounded yet wealthy tiger in the midsts to have a greater sting on the unchurched.
There may well come a time (and I believe it will be soon) the abandon ship bell rings, but let us pray it is because God rang it.

Sarah, all Christians are congregationalist—-just some are burdened down with baggage.  (;>)

PM, is that a cap your winkie is wearing?  A headband?  A heavy lock of hair?  I am searching for clews to your appearance . . .

Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a winner: 
“There is no part of Paul that says “get out” imediately.  Instead he says “expel them from your midst”.

It is exactly that process of “expelling them from our midst” that the Anglican Communion is working through.  The question before the house is: “will they or won’t they”.  If they do not discipline, then the question is moot—traditional Episcopalians will leave and scatter to varying denominations, various Primates will depart, and the Anglican Communion will eventually be no more.”

And this: “The fact that TEC may or may not be a church will be decided by the larger councils of the church—unless, Matt, you have given up on those and just moved on . . . which is fine.”

Yes, now we’re talking catholicity.  Bishop and councils make these decisions, not parish priests (or, dare I say it, lay people). Or have we become congregationalists?

This is a non-argument: “What a red herring. The NT does not make many distinctions that we do. The point is applying NT principles.”

I would like to ask, if one can’t point to NT cases where what is being advocated is being done, how exactly is it NT.  Not to mention the practice of the early church, which was completely ignored in the above non-answer.  Please tease out your NT principles.

“There we agree.  You think that the majority of those who are staying until such time as they recognize that the ABC will not act to be “AngloCatholic”.

Talk about laughable. 1. I would not at all say that all those who want to stay are Anglo Catholic. I said those in category 1 were adopting an anglo-catholic ecclesiology. Big difference which I am sure you can see. 2. I have said in two previous posts now that i was willing to see a 5th category. Do you read what I write or just shoot off.

“The fact that TEC may or may not be a church will be decided by the larger councils of the church—unless, Matt, you have given up on those and just moved on . . . which is fine.”

Again, ecclesiology rears its head. No Sarah and Tony, you are absolutely wrong. The established fact that TEC has officially embraced a gospel that is not the gospel means that she is no longer a church REGARDLESS of who or what agrees or disagrees.

Let’s say at the next general convention all the bishops together bow down and worship Ra the Egyptian Sun god. What would you do. Would you still consider TEC to be a Christian body until the ABC gets around to rendering his verdict?

“Yes, Matt, there is reason to question your reasons for insisting on this decision being about “Anglo-Catholic theology versus evangelical”. And I’m fine with *your* questioning my motives for my arguments—I take no offense at that.  All of us are subject to believing something in part because it is convenient to what we wish.  That’s the nature of human beings. “

Nevertheless, Sarah, I won’t question your motives because I respect you enough to assume that you are able to separate your personal situation from the situation in the Church. The feelings are obviously not mutual. But let me assure you. The situation at Good Shepherd has been the result of not the cause of my (and the vestry’s) present position. 

Tony,

The reason I ignored your question is because it was a red herring. Like asking where in the NT we see the need to wait for the ABC’s declaration before recognising heresy.

Matt, the reason that I can see that you ignored the early church is because it doesn’t support your case.  The early church did, in fact, defer to bishops and councils.

Tony, the first reason, as i noted, that I ignored your question is because it was a red herring. Like: Show me where Jesus supported the Iraq war.

The second reason, which I am just now communicating, is because it is a category error. When certian questionable matters arose about which there was great debate the councils met and decided the issue. From that moment on those who did not submit to that ruling were automatically considered heretics. This issue has been decided since God gave Moses the law on Sinai, since Jesus taught against sexual immorality and since Paul penned his letters to the Romans and Corinthians. If you want a council, try the Jerusalem council in Acts 15. The issue has been decided from the very beginning. THere is no need for a council to tell us that the Episcopal Church has officially embraced heresy anymore than a council would be needed to tell us that worshipping the sun god ra is a heresy.

Tony,

I agree with the first four paragraphs of your 2:51 pm post.  Well-written and precisely on target.  We are in the midst of watching the process work itself out.

Also Sarah and Tony, your appeals to the councils of the Church to determine heresy or lack thereof essential demonstrates my point. I know that both of you consider yourselves to be evangelical. But that is a very catholic (as in ecclesiologically anglo-catholic) answer. The Reformers would not have agreed. What council decided the issue of Justification? None. When Rome rejected sola fide etc…she was de-facto considered (by the Reformers) apostate. This was not decided by council. There was no council to make such a ruling. It was determined to be true by the very obvious fact (to them) that the official teaching office of the Church had adopted heresy. This fact is one of the things that prompted the rethinking of ecclesiology in the first place.

To argue that this has little to do with catholic v. evangelical ecclesiology and then suggest that we must wait until Canterbury determines whether or not a branch is in error before assuming and acting as if it is in error and those who do not are not playing church correctly is a bit self-defeating

Pardon the near alliteration, but the context of this mess includes mixed and muted messages from primatial leadership who consider that they each (truthfully) have limited authority.  Additionally, reasserters are located in a wide variety of circumstances, churches, dioceses, etc. 

So the mess is what it is.  If the _collective_ leadership wanted things to be different now, then _individually_ they would do or say things different from what they have.  (n.b., I give thanks for the GS)

I for one assume that the ABC is quite satisfied with the uncertainty reasserters in the US face - if he wanted things to be different, he could do and say different things to influence events. 

For example, the DC accepted border crossings, which the ABC has not spoken for or against.  The ABC has not publicly encouraged individual churches or reasserters to stay where they are (i.e., and work under pre-DC rules) - something I find telling. 

At the same time, the ABC has not been unequivocally clear, strong, or straightforward in his support for reasserters, whether they are pursuing an inside or outside strategy.  Why was his affirmation of communion teaching in a Dutch interview newsworthy? Shouldn’t that have been step 1?

Of course, neither the GS nor the ACN have produced a comprehensive plan that could be communicated to reasserters throughout the US.  I submit that the ACN has communicated an informal plan for some groups of reasserters, but overall it seems to be reacting to or following the primatial lead.  Perhaps the GS will reveal a plan in the next primates’ meeting.

So individual reasserters wait in uncertainty and a range of tolerable and intolerable situations.

I wish that the ABC would express some concern for reasserters in bad situations and encourage them to stay anglican, but that has not happened at all.

In contrast, his silence communicates to me that he is quite satisfied with the current level of departures, wherever they go.

So it looks like everyone above but maybe Tony is really a congregationalist.  You will stay in until the councils act, but if they act wrong you will decide that they are not the church and walk.  In the end you get to interpret Scripture and decide.  That is not even congregationlaism but rather individualism.  Of course I agree with you, just me and my Jesus will determine the truth.  I perceive that part of the problem is that there is no mechanism to discipline ECUSA.  AC doesn’t have a credentials committe.  Does the ABC decide.  If he decides wrong who will deal with him?  Why can Acanola break communion with ECUSA if it has not been adjudicated by the council (whatever that is.)?  You are hoisted on your own petard.  We are forced to live out our theology.  If that is impossible or foolish then we have to change our theology.  I discern that that is what the Holy Spirit is driving you all to.  Come on over, the waters fine.  What have you to loose but your shackles of apostacy and judgment.  Don’t tury into a pillar of salt.  <(:>)

Sarah,

“the ‘stayers’ will simply depart mostly to other non-Anglican entities. And the ‘leavers’ will have already departed to their Anglican entities.”

I think it’ll be the other way around. Of the individuals and families who have left my parish over the last several years, a number of them (and perhaps the majority) have gone to non-denominational churches. In any case, the majority definitely have left TEC for some other destination; one friend who left told me that he was very angry with the Anglican Communion and wouldn’t return unless there was more than a decade of no problems in the Communion.

True, at this moment, with all that’s happening, leavers may well go to other Anglican bodies. But from what I’ve seen, most “leavers” to date have been scattering across the winds. “Stayers” tend to stay because they have a high view of Anglicanism—although there’s always the possibility that more burnout eventually will lead to a decisive break from Anglicanism.

In any case, I do think that Matt’s right to raise the warning signals here. I remember predictions at the end of GC 2003 (by orthodox friends, but not national leaders) that once we no longer had to deal with reappraisers, Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals would turn in on themselves due to a variety of doctrinal differences (not just ecclesiology). That’s my biggest fear these days; when we separate, we lose what is perhaps Anglicanism’s greatest strength—the ability to be a kind of “melting pot” for orthodox believers of different stripes WITHOUT minimizing doctrine, as is done in non-denominational churches.

Peace of Christ,
Chip

Chip - the very idea that theological cacophony can be a strength is reversed.  It’s rooted in the idea that diversity is of itself a strength.  I dispute that idea, based on the assimilation of varied migrant groups into the greater American culture, back in the day.

When we elevate the non-standard to become an ideal, or a goal, we ask for insanity.  Not all ideas are good, not all have merit, not all need be considered.  And for 30+ years, ECUSA has lustfully pursued the laughable idea that if it ain’t broke, it’s gotta be fixed.  Well, now it IS broke, and it can’t be fixed.

Category error?  That’s an interesting approach.  The councils decided on heresies, but it is a category error?  Questionable matters?  You mean like the Trinity, christology, view of Scripture, you mean like those kind of questionable matters?

“From that moment on those who did not submit to that ruling were automatically considered heretics.”

and “THere is no need for a council to tell us that the Episcopal Church has officially embraced heresy anymore than a council would be needed to tell us that worshipping the sun god ra is a heresy.”

And like a good congregationalist you have decided this for yourself.  Congratulations.

“lso Sarah and Tony, your appeals to the councils of the Church to determine heresy or lack thereof essential demonstrates my point. I know that both of you consider yourselves to be evangelical. But that is a very catholic (as in ecclesiologically anglo-catholic) answer.”

Yes, Matt, I do consider myself an evangelical.  And as an Anglican evangelical I believe that I am part of the one, holy, catholic church.  As an Anglican I have accepted catholic (small c) ecclesiology.  That’s why I argue for decision by bishops and councils.

“You will stay in until the councils act, but if they act wrong you will decide that they are not the church and walk.  In the end you get to interpret Scripture and decide.”

P.M., And where did get this idea (or did you make it up)?

And P.M., it’s not just me and Jesus.  There’s this entity we call the church…

Before this thread ends you may have to turn your clock back and I imagine you’ll accept the authority of the US Government to do so with a smile.

I’m going to frown as I have to leave at 7am for the 8.30 service. But I love the spring change!

Tony, got the idea from reading what all the closet congregationalist were saying.  You are right, Sarah is wrong to characterize this as me and my Jesus.  It is me, Jesus and the Holy Spirit and the Church.  Now we have backed up the question to what is the church and who gets to decide?  I know and have already said what is not the church and this is the view of the true church.  To add anoter layer to the church and it goes bad you are back to having to decide what is the church.  Glad the gates of hell won’t prevail against the True Church.  Fortunately, if you are a believer, the Holy Spitit has baptized you into the true church.  Now all those other organizations that you all have joined…....<9;>)

PM, it’s not you, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?

Are you one of the closest congregationalists or individualists that can tell the rest of us what is the True Church?

I’m not sure I’m understanding what you’re saying.

Tony, not me but the Holy Spirit and Scripture can inform you and all Christian what is the true church—-or would you rather depend on xxSchorie, Griswald, Spong and all the others to inform us?  <0:>)

So, we each decide for ourselves?

Would anyone agree with this analysis of the leavers and stayers?

Group 1: They value truth much more than unity. They leave to other denominations.

Group 2: They value both truth and unity, but if put to the choice, truth comes first. They leave to other Anglican groups. If those in my church (AMIA) are representative, they hope that eventually a new Anglican province will emerge that we can all join.

Group 3: They value truth and unity equally.  They stay and fight, hoping that an answer will emerge that will preserve both, but also recognise that, if it does not, eventually they will have to leave.

Group 4: They value unity much more than truth. They will never leave ECUSA, unless it completely disintegrates, no matter how apostate it may become.

Reading over the comments in this thread, this appears to be the way it breaks down. Sarah, would you agree with this? If not, would you care to give your own analysis?  Not myself being a “cradle Episcopalian”, I am not real familiar with the Anglo-Catholic/Evangelical divide. I personally do not see why a High Church worship and being evangelical have to be mutually exclusive. The divide is the competing commands (in this case) of Scripture to be orthodox in belief and to be united in the Body of Christ. Prophet Micaiah, I came from where you are at (ex Southern Baptist). You are quite right that bishops and councils can be corrupt-but so can congregations. I live in Tennessee. There are little churches literally under every bush. Anyone who can talk fast enough to get a few people to believe him-or her, can start a church. Many of them bear no more than a superficial resemblance to Christian. Most of them are infected with spiritual pride in its worst form. Most of them are completely ineffective at spreading God’s word to others. They are wrapped up in their own little world, thinking they are right and everyone else wrong. A central organization does serve to control this infinite splintering.
You have to admit, the structure of bishops, priests and deacons has been around since the earliest days of the Church. Congregationalism is a Post-Reformation latecomer. If you want to know why I am now Anglican, read Jeremiah 6:16.

cannyscot

Cannyscot, you are right about many of the independant start-ups.  AS a rule though they are usually built around a personality—usually the pastor and they eventually peter out.  At any rate they do not harm the Body of Christ, just an evidence of the imperfection of man, even Christians.  But wait, the bishops and prelates are also men.  You can have a “perfect” bylaws and constitution and they can just not go by it.  So that is why the church must be reformed and always reforming.  Where are the seven churches in Rev. 2-3. for that matter where is the Church at Jerusalem?  BTW I also am an ex-SBC and am grateful for hearing the gospen there and getting much of my education there.  I think your analysis is right on.  Those who place truth first will eventually leave and the rest will atrophy.

Now, Toney, yes it is up to you, the Christian, to decide, and that is true whether you are a congregationalist, Romanist, or in the First Snakehandlers Church of the Mountain.  You have a responsibility to try the spirits and know if the prophets are faulty or not.  If you choose to outsource the decision making to the councils, bishops, GC, or Pope, you still do the choosing to do that and decide if your should change your mind.  We can’t escape personal responsibility.  I have confidence that the Holy Spirit is capable of leading His sheep.  He may use undershepards such as bishops, but He does set aside the apostate and allows the false believers to be deceived.  “My sheep know my voice and follow me, and another THEY WILL NOT FOLLOW.”  Ephesian 4 tells us that the Lord gives us gifted men who can guide us.  This can be local or international.  I think of people like Francis Schaeffer and Jon Stott.  They belong to all of us and are used of God, but a denomination may or may not be a tool of God for us.  We still have to decide.  Why was Jesus accepted as a great “rabi”?  Was it because of his miricles? Superficially for a while but he knew many of them were superficial followers.  Was it his “credentials.”  The established “church” leaders said he was a bastard and had a demon.  No it was because His teaching had that ring of truth.  The individual could hear Him and proclaim “never a man spoke like this man.”  They didn’t consult a council or priest union to decide.  I believe the Holy Sirit can give us the discernment we need.  Only sin in our lives can block that.  IMHO

Tony,

“Yes, Matt, I do consider myself an evangelical.  And as an Anglican evangelical I believe that I am part of the one, holy, catholic church.  As an Anglican I have accepted catholic (small c) ecclesiology.  That’s why I argue for decision by bishops and councils.”

And, as I pointed out in the article, the inherent tension in Anglican ecclesiology between catholic and reformed/evangelical understandings of the Church is central to our current debates.

This does not mean that all AC’s think one way about strategy and all evangelicals think another. It does mean that there is a continuum between catholic and evangelical ways of thinking about the Church and that this continuum goes a long way in explaining the debate in orthodox anglicanism and the debate we are having on this very thread.

There seem to be three opinions here on bishops:

Opinion 1: One’s status as bishop is determined by orthodox belief. Apostolic succession is nice but not necessary.

Opinion 2: One’s status as bishop is determined by apostolic succession. A man with orthodox belief but no succession, can never be a bishop. a man with succession, but heretical belief, is a bishop-an unfit bishop, but a bishop nonetheless.

Opinion 3: One’s status as bishop is determined by both orthodox belief and apostolic succession. A man must have both to be a bishop. A man lacking either can not be a bishop.

I would submit that at least some, if not most, of the continuing Anglican groups that have bishops have bishops in even the Opinion 3 sense, either because bishops in succession started them or, in the case of GS sponsored groups, deriving succession through the sponsoring primate and thence back to Canterbury. I do not see then why the question of apostolic succession is such a big issue? The real issue seems to be not apostolic succession but recognition by the ABC as an Anglican bishop. Have I made an accurate analysis here or does some one have a better one?

cannyscot

Cannyscot, I have asked REC priest and bishops do they have AS.  They said yes, because those ordaining them did. When asked, but are you in communion with the ABC, they reply “he recognizes our ordination.”  Not an expert but how does this figure.  Does it really matter if ABC is organically hooked up with anyone?  Maybe if the AC throws out ECUSA then they will ask ABC to give them personal primital relationship aside from the AC.  All most puzzling.

Prophet Micaiah, Anglicanism has its roots in the Church of England and yes, it is very painful to lose your roots. That is why it matters. Those roots are one reason why I came to Anglicanism. I do not know of too many congregational churches around here that teach anything about the history of the Church, where we came from, and why. Beihg a part of a church that can trace itself all the way back to the Apostles in continuous line is a spiritual strengthening because you are united with all those who have gone before. My question is why so much straining over this about leaving ECUSA when we are in a situation that almost everyone believes will be temporary. Either the Anglican Communion will conduct a thorough house cleaning and a new province will emerge that we can all join, or, as Sarah says, it will break up, at which point we will all lose our roots anyway and the ABC will become irrelevant. If you check my analysis I posted, I fall in Group 2. Unity is important, but I will not join a heretical, if not apostate, church. So I joined the AMIA church here, not one of the 13 Episcopal churches. Had I been a “cradle Episcopalian”, it might have been different.

cannyscot

Re: “Do you read what I write or just shoot off.”

No I don’t read a thing you write—my ability to discern when you’ve changed my wording is simply ESP.  ; > )

Re: “The feelings are obviously not mutual.”

You don’t know that—unless you’ve made some kind of new rule that states that anyone who questions another’s motives does not respect that person.  Is that the new rule?  ; > )

Here’s my rule, for your information.  When I discuss things to this indecent length with another person, engaging in argument [rather than laughter and frivolity], posting comments from a gas station out in the wilds of northeastern North Carolina in the pouring rain at midnight at my very first wifi-access gas station—that’s respect.

SARAH SAID: ““The fact that TEC may or may not be a church will be decided by the larger councils of the church—unless, Matt, you have given up on those and just moved on . . . which is fine.”

MATT SAID: “Again, ecclesiology rears its head. No Sarah and Tony, you are absolutely wrong. The established fact that TEC has officially embraced a gospel that is not the gospel means that she is no longer a church REGARDLESS of who or what agrees or disagrees.”

RESPONSE FROM SARAH: There’s a simple analogy that explains how this idea is incorrect.

Man beats wife, in front of witnesses.

The man has, factually, broken the law.

But . . . neither wife nor witnesses ever report the crime to the police.

“The fact that the man has broken the law will be decided [established is a better word] by policemen and a judge.” 

The woman may confide in her beloved and highly respected evangelical priest, Matt Kennedy.  And Matt Kennedy may indeed *know* that the woman is telling the truth.  BUT . . .

“The fact that the man has broken the law will be decided [established is a better word] by policemen and a judge.”

Not Matt Kennedy.

So I believe that it is with the church and its heresy.

Re: “When Rome rejected sola fide etc…she was de-facto considered (by the Reformers) apostate. This was not decided by council.”

Really? 

Well then, one wonders why Martin Luther waited around to be excommunicated, rather than simply kicking the dust off his shoes.

Ok, I’ll concede cluelessness in this discussion.  Tony, (or anyone else who wants to chime in) 2 questions concerning two statements you made above.  First, this:

and “THere is no need for a council to tell us that the Episcopal Church has officially embraced heresy anymore than a council would be needed to tell us that worshipping the sun god ra is a heresy.”

And like a good congregationalist you have decided this for yourself.  Congratulations.

How is Matt being a “congregationalist” in his view of TEC as not being a church?  He stated three marks of what constitutes a true church and defended them from the 39 Articles, pointing out where TEC has left those marks in the dust.  Those Articles represent (or at least they used to represent) over 400 years of received church tradition and have been affirmed and re-affirmed by the councils of the Anglican Church in that same period.  TEC also seems to have broken with church teaching and conciliar decision making by allowiing/promoting sexual immorality which was forbdden by the Jerusalem council in Acts 15.  Do we need new councils to interpret these previous councils that have been well-received by the generations before us?  If so, how often do they need to meet in order that we do not stray from orthodox teaching?

Second, you said:

And as an Anglican evangelical I believe that I am part of the one, holy, catholic church.  As an Anglican I have accepted catholic (small c) ecclesiology.  That’s why I argue for decision by bishops and councils.

My question here is can councils and bishops err?  If so, by what standard do we judge their decisions if we do not use the marks that Matt has pointed out?  I am assuming that the preaching the Gospel in truth includes proclaiming the whole counsel of God from Genesis to the Revelation to John.

Please do not assume impudence on my part.  These are genuine questions that I am trying to sort out for myself.  They lie near the heart of my fight or flight decision concerning TEC.

RE: ” . . . and then suggest that we must wait until Canterbury determines whether or not a branch is in error before assuming and acting as if it is in error. . . “

Never suggested any such thing.  I suggested giving the Primates/Canterbury enough time to either 1) “hang themselves by their inaction” or 2) establish the boundaries, discipline, and order of the Anglican Communion by disciplining ECUSA.

If the latter happens, it will have been worth every moment of my time.

If the former happens . . . the clarity and illumination provided will have been worth every moment of my time.

Well, I’m off in my car again on a wild and stormy night.

Sweet dreams all—I hope that Matt is either vacuuming the floor or working on his sermon.

I note that PM’s headgear is becoming suspiciously ornate.  Prophets are simple and wear animal hair and eat locusts.

Upon further review, this statement/question from me…

“If so, how often do they need to meet in order that we do not stray from orthodox teaching?”

...sounds snarky when it wasn’t meant that way.  Please ignore it.

“How is Matt being a “congregationalist” in his view of TEC as not being a church?”

Maybe individualist would be a better term here, along the lines of what Bp. Duncan said about our American love of freedom.  When Matt decides for himself whether or not a church is the True Church (which, btw, I don’t believe there is a true church on this earth), then he is acting as an individualist.

Yes, bishops and councils do err (like ecusa bp.s and General Convention, for example) - see the 39 Articles.  But we have put at least some of our faith in bp.s and councils rather than personal judgements.  In a catholic ecclesiology it is part of what we believe is the divine ordering of the Church.

Sarah,

1. In the abuse scenario above, if Matt Kennedy were to suggest waiting around in the abusers home until the judge had made his determination, Matt Kennedy would be a really bad evangelical pastor.

2. Re: Martin Luther. Right, he was excommunicated and, in fact, he initially did not plan or desire to leave Rome but simply to reform of the Church. But his separation from her rather than submission to her, without any appeal to church council etc…was an essentially congregationalist act. It determined the shape of evangelical ecclessiology, an ecclessiology that, as Tony notes, is not the one to which he adheres. his is a catholic one and I am suggesting that as evangelical as you both are, that the decisions you are making in this regard are more consistent with a catholic than an evangelical understanding of the Church. This does not mean that they are wrong. It is just an observation and a possible explanation for some of the recent turmoil on the conservative side.

And Tony as for my individualism. If you and your house choose to be united with worshippers of sun god Rah (see above) or Eros, or Astarte, or Belial or any other god until the ABC determines that such worship is heretical, be my guest. But for me and my house…well, you know the rest.

Re: “In the abuse scenario above, if Matt Kennedy were to suggest waiting around in the abusers home until the judge had made his determination, Matt Kennedy would be a really bad evangelical pastor.”

But it appears that the beloved and highly respected evangelical Matt Kennedy HAS BANISHED THE ABUSER FROM HIS CHURCH/HOME. So the issue of protection is moot.

Besides that . . . I wasn’t talking about protection, I was speaking about who exactly gets to establish that the man has broken the law?  Is it Matt Kennedy that establishes that fact, especially when Matt Kennedy fervently believes that the man has broken the law?

No.

In the same way, although an individual may deem a person or entity heretical, only a church gets to establish heresy—and it needs to be a church that has some connection to the heretical church.

The Anglican Communion gets to establish that fact.

Interestingly, should the Anglican Communion fail to establish that fact, then it does not have one of the three “marks of a church” that you spoke about in your article—the ability to discipline its own.

“Besides that . . . I wasn’t talking about protection, I was speaking about who exactly gets to establish that the man has broken the law?”

Let’s say the woman comes to Matt Kennedy, who tells her that she simply must bear up under the abuse and the judge determines that despite her bruises there is no “evidence” of abuse.

Has abuse occured? Has the law been broken? Would the woman be demonstating her American unilateralist/individualistic tendencies were she to go ahead and take her kids and leave, filing for divorce later.

AS for the marks. It already does not meet the first as you have acknoweledged. Let me restate what I wrote above to Tony:

This issue has been decided since God gave Moses the law on Sinai, since Jesus taught against sexual immorality and since Paul penned his letters to the Romans and Corinthians. If you want a council, try the Jerusalem council in Acts 15. The issue has been decided from the very beginning. THere is no need for a council to tell us that the Episcopal Church has officially embraced heresy anymore than a council would be needed to tell us that worshipping the sun god ra is a heresy

It seems to me that the difference between Matt and Sarah is not a question of a congregationalism vs. episcopal church government.  Sarah argues that we wait to see if there is discipline by the Anglican Communion before making her “congregational” decision of whether to leave TEC/AC.  If Luther had been truly catholic, he would have repented when the councils of the church in Rome asked him to rather than continuing in a belief that was heretical in their eyes.  In truth, we are all at least a little individualistic rather than conciliar in our church order or we would be buying what our council, our authority, our pope if you will (General Convention) is selling.  There is no canonical authority on earth that is higher in TEC.  We cannot claim not to be congregational is we are a member of a group (congregation) that is acting independently or even against General Convention.

Re: “Let’s say the woman comes to Matt Kennedy, who tells her that she simply must bear up under the abuse and the judge determines that despite her bruises there is no “evidence” of abuse.”

So far, I do not think that the “judge”—the Anglican Communion—has determined that “there is no ‘evidence’ of abuse” . . . so far, the “judge” has steadily and methodically moved towards the completion of the trial.

Re: “AS for the marks. It already does not meet the first as you have acknoweledged.”

Matt—I had not realized that you had decided that the Anglican Communion was not a church.  That pretty much changes the conversation that I thought we were having.

I said: “Interestingly, should the Anglican Communion fail to establish that fact, then it does not have one of the three “marks of a church” that you spoke about in your article—the ability to discipline its own.”

Have you now already decided that not only ECUSA is not a church but that the Anglican Communion is not a church?

If so, then I understand your argument for departure.  I do not agree that the AC has been proven to not be a church, but if that is what you believe than certainly it’s understandable the perspective that you take.

“So far, I do not think that the “judge”—the Anglican Communion—has determined that “there is no ‘evidence’ of abuse” . . . so far, the “judge” has steadily and methodically moved towards the completion of the trial.”

True, but that whilst the judge is steadily moving toward a verdict that the husband is in fact an abuser, the woman ought not sit around enduring the abuse that, regardless of the judgement, is in fact occurring.

Sarah, the Episcopal Church is not a Church. Whether it is part of the Anglican Communion or not is, indeed something for the Anglican Communion to decide. But regardless of that decision, the Episcopal Church is no church and there is no reason to wait around for the rest of the church to recognize a fact that is as clear as the scriptures.

I have to go to a meeting and will not be back to this thread all day, [traveling again late this evening] so I figure that by the time I check in on it tomorrow, the various players will have moved on to who will win the Superbowl this year.

But I do need to slightly distinguish my perspective from Tony’s [I think, though I may be misreading him].

I began by arguing fervently that Matt’s analysis of the reasons why certain non-Anglo-Catholics were making the decision to stay-to-see was the wrong analysis.  I note his olive branch offered of a fifth category [I prefer “fifth column” . . . ; > ) ] and it is an olive branch that I see that he offered earlier in the thread but that for some reason I misread or “misfiled” in my brain cabinet.

And then we have traveled far along the road since then. 

But I do not think that Matt or his parish’s [or other’s] decisions are inherently “congregational” [unless of course we are going to broaden immensely the definition of “congregational”].  As far as I can tell, Matt’s ecclesiology is NOT congregational, and certainly parishes, priests, and individuals may *make individual determinations* [though those determinations are not adjudicatory] without necessarily choosing a congregational church order.  Matt’s [and others] decisions may or may not be made for “congregational” reasons/theology.

I do think that when one looks at the broad trend of the individuals and congregations that are in the “leave now” category rather than the “wait until” category, there seems to be a perspective in the former group that is “less hiearchical” than those in the latter category.

But that does not move them all the way towards the pole of “congregational”.

I also think that if Matt had described his two poles as “congregational” and “hiearchical/conciliar”, I would not have so vehemently resisted his analysis.

But even with those two poles, I still don’t place Matt at the far end of the “congregational” pole, but rather trending towards the “middle” of the pole.

At any rate, I also think that we have found ourselves in an epic period of Anglican church history, and the melee that has ensued has caused people and parishes to have to make some incredibly challenging and painful decisions in the both “wait until” and the “leave now” categories.

So I do think that the decisions made now, though “epic-making” and “historic” also have to be seen as being made “in extremis” and under highly stressful conditions within Anglicanism.

Need to dash now.  Cheers . . .

It seems to me that if a council of the church has approved alternative oversight (i.e., DC), then seeking such oversight from another province is a catholic response.

For some reason the DC does not count for Tony. I brought it up before and he seems to think that the DC simply gave-in and permitted a temporary congregationalist provision. Correct me, tony, if I am wrong

DC= Dromantine Communique: Yes, this was an action of archbishops and bishops.  Now, Matt, you are better versed in the contents of the DC - did it say that individual priests should lead their parishes out of ecusa immediately?

It certainly made provision for cross jurisdictional relationships so long as they are made at the initiation and request of the parish.

Before I get started with this post, let me say this: I am no fan of TEC/ECUSA. IMO, the sooner TEC/ECUSA gets bounced out of the AC on its butt, the better off we will all be.

The problem I am having now is this: What comes next? I saw this on the horizon several years and said so at the time. Well, it is no longer on the horizon, it is right in front of us. I am talking about the balkanization of Anglicanism in America. The current situation in TEC/ECUSA has some striking parallels to the breakup of Yugoslavia after Tito (Serbs/Croats/Albanians), the break up-coming soon-of Iraq after Saddam (Sunnis/Shiites/Kurds), and the breakup of the Soviet Union after the fall of communism.

This is, at least partially, why so many of us are so dismayed that things seem to be dragging on for so long. The longer it takes for a resolution, the more factions we seem to split into. I could fill a whole page with a pro-this/anti that list. I guess, deep down inside, I have been hoping for some kind of unified and viable Anglican entity that would supplant TEC/ECUSA. That is looking less and less likely. In fact, it seems apparent that we are going to have a multitude of smaller entities competing with each other.

There was a poll taken by the Diocese of Dallas not long ago that showed (Surprise!) that the more informed the pew sitters were, the more dissatisfied they were with TEC/ECUSA. Bear with me for a minute. If everyone were fully informed and for the purposes of this discussion only, we took Womens Ordination and gay marriage/ordination off the table (there are otherwise orthodox Episcopalians that are pro WO and gay marriage/ordination) and boiled things down to the remaining theologically orthodox vs theologically liberal-revisionist-universalist-Spongian issues, we would find this: There wouldn’t be enough be enough of the liberals to fill a World Cup soccer stadium. Of course, the fly in the ointment remains the WO and gay issues but that could be settled over time by true discussion and dialogue as opposed to the TEC/ECUSA method of just cramming it down everyones throat. One conclusion I have come to just recently is that I can tolerate sitting on a pew next to a truly orthodox Christian that disagrees with me on WO/gay issues but I can not and will not tolerate the Spongian crowd.

So what is the purpose of this post? I’m not sure I know. Maybe it is “Can’t we all just get along?”. It seems like all I have seen lately is Stand Firm’ers tossing verbal grenades at each other (no names, you know who you are). If there is to be any kind of viable orthodox Anglican entity in our future after the demise (soon, I hope) of TEC/ECUSA, we are all going to have to do a better job of working with each other. Otherwise, all we will have to choose from is a plethora of tiny little semi-Anglican entities that may or may not be in communion with Canterbury or each other. Can you say “balkanization?”

Sorry for my rambling. I hope it makes sense.

the snarkster

One conclusion I have come to just recently is that I can tolerate sitting on a pew next to a truly orthodox Christian that disagrees with me on WO/gay issues but I can not and will not tolerate the Spongian crowd.

Sorry, I meant to say “possibly” tolerate above. I would be willing to try. That does not mean I could tolerate it from the church leadership. Does that make sense?

the snarkster

snarkster,
I agree with your interest in wanting to keep us all together.  I differ from many here in believing that what we see publically is not necessarily what is going on behind the scenes.  Every time a bishop has to respond to the whining in the orthodox camp, he has to tip his hand a bit more.  This helps the fears in the orthodox camp but believe me, the revisionists are taking notes.

These men will indeed come forth with what we have been awaiting at the right time.  We DON’T know all aspects of the issues involved.  Yes it takes a lot of patience.  Yes it is growing thin for many.  Still, these men are not looking to sell us down the river.  They are honestly doing what needs to be done to get the task accomplished. 

Is it possible for us to support them in prayers rather than crucify them?  As an owner of a small company, it pains me to hear comments made about my management by employees who have no inkling how much I think about decisions I make and their implication to the families of each of my employees.  These bishops do what they must do and be accountable to God.  In the meantime, it would be nice for them to hear that we uphold them in prayer and stand behind them as they seek to protect us in ways of which we do not yet fathom.

I’ve sent you an email as well

snarkster,
I was not able to email you

richardc: try .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address). I can’t figure out this StandFirm email either.

the snarkster

I came across an interesting passage in a book recommended by Dr. Witt.  The passage talks about synods putting Montanists out of the church.  The point is that synods, not individual bishops make this decision.  The paragraph ends with this: “Beyond doubt the synods assume the right to exclude the heretics from the whole church.”  Werner Elert, Eucharist and Fellowship in the First Four Centuries, p. 127.  Why is it that some of us are in such a hurry to do for ourselves what the ancients understood as the proper action of bishops and councils?

I should have said above: bishops in councils, as Elert says, these are not even the decisions of individual bishops.

Matt, I went through the DC points dealing with the WR and ecusa and I missed any mention of anything about parishes petitioning anyone but the Panel of Reference.  Would you please direct me to what you are talking about above?

Tony,

It is difficult to believe that you are really that ignorant of the DC and it’s import, especially this paragraph:

“15. In order to protect the integrity and legitimate needs of groups in serious theological dispute with their diocesan bishop, or dioceses in dispute with their Provinces, we recommend that the Archbishop of Canterbury appoint, as a matter of urgency, a panel of reference to supervise the adequacy of pastoral provisions made by any churches for such members in line with the recommendation in the Primates’ Statement of October 2003 (xii). Equally, during this period we commit ourselves neither to encourage nor to initiate cross-boundary interventions.”

There has been extensive discussion of this as it relates to the WR’s far more restrictive suggestions. There is virtually no disagreement in orthodox circles that the DC opened the way for border crossings in so far as they are initiated domestically. In fact, even the ACI analysis of the DC acknowledges as much…

Here are a couple of articles I have written on the topic:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/the_truth_about_border_crossings/

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/forgetting_dromantine/

This paragraph also addresses the other area of contention – that of intervention across provincial boundaries. Some had claimed TWR saw a ‘moral equivalence’ between this and the actions in North America or even that the greatest threat to communion was to be seen in such disregard for established jurisdictions. Their very limited discussion of it makes clear that the Primates do not hold either of these views. They make no reference to the recommendation of TWR concerning this (para 155) thought they state, “Equally, during this period we commit ourselves neither to encourage nor to initiate cross-boundary interventions”.

This part of the communiqué perhaps signals at least a partial compliance with TWR on the part of those who in the recent past have crossed diocesan and provincial boundaries and a recognition by them that such unilateral actions are also corrosive of life in communion. This presumably is because there is hope the Archbishop’s panel will – with urgency - ensure adequate episcopal oversight. It is perhaps significant, however, that there is no reaffirmation of the frequently stated respect for boundaries in the last two Primates’ letters (from Brazil and Lambeth) and that the commitment is neither to encourage nor initiate interventions but not necessarily to refrain totally from them if they are requested.

Andrew Goddard from the ACI: http://www.anglicancommunioninstitute.org/articles/initialreflectionsrevised2.htm

Matt, I’m not sure you read what I wrote.  You raise the
paragraph I mentioned with the Panel of Reference.  I haven’t thought to this point that your hope was in the worthless POR.

I referenced para 14. I meant to reference 15. But my two responses above were more directed toward your assertion to have read all the relevant portions of the DC that reference ECUSA etc.

I have no hope for the POR.

Neither do I (have hope in the PoR).

With out being (hopefully) trite - my hope is in the Lord.  Basically, the PoR is non-existent. 

The fact is - the DC and its recognition of facts…

The inside and the outside responses are both within catholic anclicanism.  Please be careful, and God bless.

Re: “Sarah, the Episcopal Church is not a Church.”

Matt. 

I do not accept your ability to judge that.

You do.

I don’t.

“I do not accept your ability to judge that. You do.”

Absolutely not. That’s not my judgement at all. The Lord has given us clear tests by which we can see whether or not a person or institution is proclaiming the truth: see Dt 18:20-21, Matt 7:15-23, Galatians 1, etc…

TEC has, as a matter of legislated fact, failed these tests (or do you think otherwise) and thus does not meet the fist mark of a true church.

In other words, “I” am not judging anything. God has already revealed his judgments with regard to these matters and the Church has long ago affirmed it…or do you know of any council that has made provision for extra-marital sex or the denigration of the authority of God’s Word.

The idea that we must wait for the church to judge this might hold some water were we dealing with uncharted or uncertain territory…audiafora etc..

What would we say were ECUSA to proclaim legislatively and officially, that the doctrine of the Trinity is antiquated and false. God is not “personal”. God is the Cosmos. 

Would we need to sit around and twiddle our fingers and wonder what the ABC might have to say? Would we have to have yet another council to determine AGAIN whether or not God is one in being and three in person?

OF course not. These things have been decided and determined by the Scriptures and the Church long ago. Judgement has been rendered already.

Read that first chapter of Galatians again. Paul does not say, Galatians when these false teachers arrived you should have waited around and sent a letter to Jerusalem to see whether or not the gospel was acceptable.

No, he said if anyone brings a gospel contrary to The Gospel, he is anathema. That is the judgement. It is done. And the believers in the local church have the authority to recognize that and act accordingly without appeal to Jerusalem.

I can’t believe that you would want to

Matt & Sarah - I am reminded of the messages to the seven churches in the Revelation.  They are still addressed as “churches”, even though most of them are faulted for serious deficiencies (having strayed from Christ as “first love”, lukewarm, etc.)
But, the warning to Ephesus in Rev. 2 is that if they do not repent Christ will “take away their lampstand.”  The other churches are threatened with various calamaties but also promises of mercy to faithful remnants.
Matt - Is it reading to much into your position to say that TEC has already “lost its lampstand” - that is, is it already less than a church and under destruction by the Lord’s own action?  At what point do you think it went beyond the ability to repent?  Or, to Sarah’s position that TEC is still a church being called to repent, at what point do you think it would lose the chance to repent and suffer divine consequences?
I notice that Paul’s appeals to Corinth and Galatia were both just that - appeals - with warnings that failure to reject false teachers/leaders would have consequences.  The consequences were tied to divine action or spiritual power, not institutional sanction or adjustment.
It is early and I am thinking out loud a bit, but I am asking a discernment question: is the Lord still calling TEC to repent or is he already inflicting a sentence?

Timothy+,

Good questions. I think the turning point was GC2003. That was when TEC officially and legislatively adopted heresy and committed herself to rebellion. The seeds had been sown long before, but they reached fruition in 2003. But I argued then that God had given her three years to repent. So I decided to remain, fight and see if the church would pull back.

She did not. She accelerated. In 2006, she made her commitment to rebellion and apostasy complete. She refused to repent.

I waited and argued for waiting until GC2006 because I believe that that was the point of decision.

That point has come and TEC has turned her back.

She no longer bears the first mark of the church.

“a long time ago”..  That phrase has stuck in my head for a day or so.  Someone suggested that we should “wait for a council to decide”.  I see it otherwise.  Because many (if not most of us pew sitters (and musicians) did not have much background in church history, we tend to think all “this” is something new.

None of it is “new”.  Long ago, councils did “decide”.  We (feeling more enlightened) just don’t like their decision.  So we blather along trying to find a “loop hole” in what should be a matter settled.

I heard a Bible verse this morning, and it struck close to home.

“If my people, who are called by “MY name”, shall humble themselves…........... 
Perhaps you could look it up, and read the promise attached to that “if”.........  It’s truly amazing,  not only will HE bless us, but HE will “heal our land”........

Blessings,
Grannie Gloria

Re: “In other words, “I” am not judging anything.”

Yes, you are.

We’re back to saying that—“yes you are”, “no I’m not”.

I understand precisely what you believe, Matt, and you do I.

It’s fine for individuals to privately determine that a person has broken the law. But the judgement of that law breaking is with the courts, not an individual.

Since what this thread has done is illuminated the division that we already knew existed . . . and illuminated it nicely as none of it is surprising to me . . . you are welcome to the last word.  I have no need of Matt Kennedy agreeing with me, nor do you have a need of my agreeing with you.

But I do want you to know that I disagree strongly with many of the principles that you espouse in this thread. 

It will be interesting to see where the two groups who disagree about this important matter will end up.  But as I have agreed with you also, I do not think that the two groups will ultimately be together in one body.

Matt is right and Sarah is wrong.  The NASCAR Church has already decided that the homosexual church is not a church.  Just ask any of them and they will roll over laughing.  Any believer indwelt by the Holy Spirit and having a Bible can judge what God has already judged.  Martin Luther didn’t wait for a council to tell him the RCC was wrong.  Neither did the reformers.  The church didn’t wait until a council canonized the Bible before they could use it.  They were already using the sixty-six.  The coundil just ratified what Christians already believed.  I had rather come out and be received by the Father than to cozzy up with the gnostics and perverts just because the mechaism to judge has been hijacked.  I believe in Bishops, every church should have one or more (elders, pastor used interchangablely)  I believe in councils.  Chruches can meet to set forth the position for clarity as in Acts 15.  Our church has done this.  All believers belong to the one true church,  the lost are outside.  That is what the Scripture teaches.  Probably sounds strange to your ears, but you have been in captivity.  Peace….

PM, we are all, I would think, familiar with the interchangability of bishops and presbyters in the New Testament.  In catholic ecclesiology (roughly 95% of the church today and probably nearer to 99% historically speaking), bishops as an order distinguished from presbyters occurred after the apostolic age.  Bishops as successors to the apostles has been the position of the church (see numbers above) for nearly 2000 years.  You are free to accept a different ecclesiology, but to do so really puts you outside the conversation in terms of Anglicans and Episcopalians.

Tony, I’ll be glad to stick to the apostolic age.  Guess that make me a primitive episcopalian!  +<:-)>

Just for the sake of full accuracy, while many scholars assume that the NT use of presbuteros and episcopos indicate that the two terms are completely synonomous, it is also possible that even in the NT era, all bishops were presbyters, but not all presbyters were bishops.  I think it is really impossible to know absolutely for certain what the NT situation might have been.

Smoke and mirrors.  “I have no need of Matt Kennedy agreeing with me, nor do you have a need of my agreeing with you.”—Sarah Hey.  Human needs are important, but as this extensive thread demonstrates, human needs don’t respond well to reason or logic.  They need that renewing faith—sometimes called reason—which is our new life (Rom 12:1) in Jesus.  Matt+ I am a little surprised at your iron will on this, methinks you have forgotten your earlier adherence to Hegel’s dialectic:  why would you be so obtuse w/Sarah when in truth you believe it will synthesize out?  And Sarah, I agree completely with you, and applaud your pacific means here.  The more important issue is: why is it that these disagreement must be a blueprint for splitting Christianity yet again?  Well documented above are the previous splits, and they haven’t really accomplished much.  Perhaps—just perhaps—this time folks could see that yess the disagreements are there, but the grounds for community are big enough to hold us all.  I’m not syaing there aren’t boundaries—good and important boundaries—just that we could all step inside, and deal with the real problems together.

Quoting from Elert (fuller citation above): “Unity can only be established or reestablished if the congregations hold fast to the pure gospel and they set their anathema against every every other gospel and against every man who preaches another gospel.” p. 46

Anathema to the false gospel of ecusa, terebinth.  There can be no true unity between the gospel and the false gospel of ecusa.

Tony, the boundaries dont have to be within TEC, especially as we know it.  We can agree on that.  For example if you were to think of an onion, TEC at the center and better and better parts at the edges, finally Jesus’ intentions for the church at the outermost parts.  And of course the whole is expanding.  Those outer parts have a real effect and a real motivation to harbor the core.  Give it some thought.

“I do not think that the two groups will ultimately be together in one body.”

The most depressing thing I have read in a long time.  This (one body) is exactly what I am hoping and praying for and what the Bible prophesies (that we will be one body).  Ultimately there are only two bodies that will exist and I certainly hope we are in the same body.

One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism

Terebinth:

I think you have just put your finger on my problem.  TEC is like an onion, which explains why I have so many tears in my eyes the more layers I peel back to expose the heart of the church.  I just wish it were more like a cake.

We are all called to suffer.  Cakes are fattening.  The point is we are all bound together, like it or not; better to work on the rotten core than deny the reality of the whole.

Cut out the rotten core before it rots the entire onion or apple.  Other wise don’t eat from that onion.

Terebinth,are we all bound together?
I can see it in a mutual creature-hood of being all created by God,I can see it in Adam and his sin,I can see it in a fellow believer in Christ Jesus.I can see it in marriage between a man and a woman.
In those things I gladly see it,those are realities that can be seen in Scripture.
I can’t see it ,however,in the type of behaviour that some would claim a blessing for,but in actuality is no more than a case of fallacious reporting of fellowship with Him(we lie)while the walk (or pattern of living)is that which reflects a reality of darkness in the light of the Word and ways of God and do not (practice the truth).
I don’t know whether some would recognise that as being a part of ‘splitting Christianity’ as you put it but from what I learned in my First John class in seminary it would necessitate a division because God has nothing in common(or community)with darkness,it’s that Holy God thing raising up again(1 John 1:5),which to me,would make it discerning between darkness and light.
Then I might wonder whether ,to use your fruit analogy,and that Jesus warnings in Matthew 7:16-20,good and bad trees and the fruit they bear.Still in the same orchard but some are rotten and eventually they get burned.
Wondering as well,would the sheep’s clothing on the wolf Matthew 7:15)come with collars and the occasional purple shirt?

No, terebinth, an onion is not a good metaphor for ecusa or the church.  The NT image of the body, a living entity, is apt. In the case of ecusa and the AC, the church is in the process of removing the cancer that would otherwise threaten the entire body.