The Reverend Dr. Ephraim Radner, a member of the Covenant Design Group, and currently Rector of the Church of the Ascension, Pueblo, Colorado, USA but soon to become professor of historical theology at Wycliffe College, Toronto, Canada has written a paper, published at the ACI website, entitled The Common Cause of a Common Light. Here’s how it starts:
The movement towards a separated North American Anglican church, aligned perhaps with one part of the Anglican Communion and not another, appears to be gaining steam. The focus of the Anglican Communion Network’s official leadership has shifted perceptibly towards this goal, overtly transferring its energies from its work as a coalition of American traditionalist bishops working representatively with the larger Communion, to the strategy of a “Common Cause” formation of a new ecclesial structure that would function either as a new Anglican Communion province, or as a province in a new alternative Anglican Communion. Regular consultation among Network bishops has diminished in frequency, while the work on Common Cause has demanded new and steadier communication.
Is this shift of energies positive? As a founding member of the Network, I would urge more open discussion about this. Indeed, it is a discussion that has not taken place in any organized, illuminated, and Communion-wide basis, and it needs to, quickly and honestly and without rancor. Obviously, the topic has long been a staple of blog debate. But however informative such debate can be, it is not a substitute for common prayer, discussion, and discernment as a Body in the Lord. Indeed, most bloggers are anonymous or pseudonymous, their representative roles blurred or hidden, and their actual numbers limited by the psychological demands of the genre. Yet, from Lambeth to North America to Africa, much that we know about the hopes and strategies of the coming months comes only on internet discussions culled from partially leaked memos, recorded off-hand comments, indirect interviews, secret informants, and pure speculation. And on this basis people declare their allegiances! The Anglican Church is longing for an open council, un-manipulated by guile and passion; yet what we are getting instead are the sparks of competing political strategies that have the effect of inculcating ecclesial passivity drunk on anxiety.
It’s worth reading right through, despite a problem with its formatting which one hopes will be fixed soon.
Radner’s concerns in point 2/3 are very pertinent. Especially “It seems as if some of the quiet strategizing that is taking place derives from such a deep suspicion with respect to large parts of the Communion, including its Instruments of Communion, that only stealth is deemed an appropriate and prudent way forward.” Yet I do not agree with his conclusions that the Episcopal church as a whole has shown a brazen disregard for taking counsel and discussion. They have taken counsel and discussion within their own dioceses and their own dioceses have made choices that are appropriate for their jurisdiction.… Read more »
“The focus of the Anglican Communion Network’s official leadership has shifted perceptibly towards this goal, overtly transferring its energies from its work as a coalition of American traditionalist bishops working representatively with the larger Communion, to the strategy of a “Common Cause” formation of a new ecclesial structure that would function either as a new Anglican Communion province, or as a province in a new alternative Anglican Communion.” Yep, there we see the bait-and-switch tactic right there. The Network has been telling parishes that they need to join and leave TEC in order to remain Anglican, when their eventual goal… Read more »
I wouldn’t hold my breath for anything coming from the ACI.
Having said that, I wouldn’t hold my breath either for any of what Radner seems to be saying here: on the one hand, its all about the politics of defeat and accomodation; on the other hand, he seems to be talking about a veeeery different Anglican Communion than the one I’d be ready to give witness for (stuff like “…If the ACC cannot consider and respondto the executive desires of the Primates, there will be no commonfollowing…” just gives me the shivers!)
Yespleasesomeone findaword editor forthatarticle.
I have just read an Evangelical commentary on Covenant by Professor Noll. Please note how there is no definition of what constitutes marriage, other than it is between one man and one woman. Whether Christian marriage is indissoluble or breakable is simply ( Like the REFORM and SUGDEN led Covenant) skirted round. This is deliberate , as if there is an admission that the Anglican Communion cannot agree on this, it will make the stance on homosexuality and the claim of evangelicals to Biblical clarity laughable. Truly this is self deception par excellence. “Saving marriage”, by lowering the bar so… Read more »
One of the several foundations of this Church dilemma is American cultural regionalism – a foundation that is not often considered – truly it is the “800 pound gorilla” in the room that is ignored – this cultural viewpoint may seem to add little – it is not “theological”- but it should be an important part of the discussion – it explains much – not the least of which is the geography of the dispute in the USA – As an aside, I must admit that one of the major commentators on a well known conservative blog had me stumped… Read more »
“our interpretation and view of Theology is conditioned by our culture…” This would be the culture of Virginia outside Washington DC where Republicans have gathered to opportunize on the Bush administration, two isolated congregations. The others are opportunity zones for political right wing agendas, namely, Colorado Springs offshoots from fundamentalist, anti-gay, James Dobson. This noise is not coming from within the American Episcopal dialogue. It’s comming from fundamentalists who’ve added their voice. They propogate factionalism. If there’s a “fine point” to be placed on it, it’s that in the US we have a free for all for screamers. They are… Read more »
Ettu, I agree: much of the schismatic energy in the US is a product of its Southern subcultures (have you read “Albion’s Seed”?) — just as much of the energy of the Sydney Anglicans comes from the subculture of Sydney, and not the other way around. The strength of the US schismatics in recent years has been greatly reinforced by Southern dominance in US national politics, which was made possible, in turn, by the Southern, Evangelical, reliably Republican, “religious right.” A few years ago, this was all spiraling upward, rather like the housing prices in the “Sun Belt” suburbs, and… Read more »
The closer we get to various virtual communion reality deadlines, especially as held in the minds of realignment folks, the more and more openly we will hear declarations that are supposed to be obvious to the rest of us, but which probably are not all that obvious. We will probably continue to question special Cons-Evo claims of special godly authority. The first declaration, naturally, is that the worldwide communion has been shown clearly to be broken beyond repair. We will hear yet again that this must be true, mainly because for several decades now, Cons-Evos believers of very loudly high-minded… Read more »
Robert Ian Williams on Sunday, 15 July 2007 at 9:25am BST —
I have been told on good authority (but I have not seen this for myself) that in the African Equatorial Anglican provinces that it is quite common for other elements to be used instead of the (non-cultural & frequently difficult to acquire) bread & wine — so much for the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral
Charlotte – Yes, I have read Fischer’s “Albion’s Seed” tracing the strands of regionalism up to the present – a required read and one which explains quite a bit of USA politics – I also like his older “Paul Revere’s Ride” which – despite it’s title- reads like fiction – and good fiction at that – I once left a copy of it in a a house in Stratford on Avon and have always wondered whether it was read or not – tata
Charlotte and ettu, what has been most surprising for me about the ongoing unpleasantness in our church is how *non-Southern* it is. With some exceptions, the controversy is being driven by places like Albany, Fresno, Pittsburgh, etc. Even in the case of Fort Worth, Iker is an Ohio carpetbagger. John Howe is from Chicago. Mark Lawrence is a fifth generation Californian. Ackerman, our Admiral of Morality, is from Pennsylvania. Beckwith hails from Michigan. Schofield is from Massachusetts. Bob Duncan is from Joizy. Kendall Harmon is a son of Illinois. And so on. I have spent most of my life in… Read more »
I hear the comments about culture impacting on theology – Sydney is known as one of the brashest cities in Australia. That said, I have also been delighted with the speed with which some southern baptist churches have picked up the cues and repented on difficult issues. I have seen several of them blush, and have yet to see that in one Anglican. It pleases God to see contrite hearts e.g. Psalms 57:17 and Isaiah 57:15, as it offers a crumb of hope that compassion and justice can be fully aroused in these souls. Some might have yet to come… Read more »
Prior Aelred The official consultation on Eucharistic Elements includes the comments from the Berkeley 2001 meeting of the International Anglican Liturgical Consultation (point 6) http://www.aco.org/liturgy/docs/ialc2001minutes.html at which diversity of practice is reported, and also some thought about sacred meals in scripture and culture, and also about the practices to be adopted when the official elements are not available. The notes of the 2005 consultation refer to further work having been done, and to be done – section 13 at: http://www.aco.org/liturgy/docs/ialc2005minutes.htm The progress of these discussions is followed briefly in Joint Liturgical Study 63 ‘A History of the International Anglican Liturgical… Read more »
Cheryl, “They have taken counsel and discussion within their own dioceses” The point is though that they seem not to have taken council with people outside TEC, nor have paid any concern for the views of those outside TEC. I can understand that, and I’m not altogether sure I’d disagree. The idea that to take council with one’sself is sufficient goes against the nature of the Catholic faith, I think. JPM, “I had no idea there were all these angry fundamentalist Episcopalians until 2003” Same here, and I’m still shocked that there are Anglicans who carry on as you describe.… Read more »
Ford,
“The idea that to take council with one’sself is sufficient goes against the nature of the Catholic faith, I think.”
Where do you draw the line? Is the CoE allowed to make its own decisions or does it have to take council with the whole AC?
Or does the Catholic faith require taking council with all Christian churches?
And what does “taking council” mean – agreeing on everything? Putting everything to an international vote? Majority decisions?
I’m not being critical, I genuinely would like to know what kind of taking council you think would have been sufficient.
Bread and Ribena is not unknown
Ford: I love to hear folks at TA bandy around terms like “fundamentalist”. And, as I have pointed out before, anyone who believes anything strongly on anything is, in that respect, a “fundamentalist”–i.e., one who holds certain beliefs/concepts to be basic, fundamental, and generally irrefutable. Obviously, the liberal “fundamentals” are different from the conservative “fundamentals”, but the spirit is the same. The original use of the term in the U.S. related to some folks who stood against weakening or abandoning some Christian doctrines they considered basic and fundamental. I can’t recall that I disagree with anything they had to say,… Read more »
Mark Bennet on Monday, 16 July 2007 at 12:39pm BST — Thank you very much for these references — I knew that the St. Thomas Christians had managed with raisin water for centuries because they couldn’t get wine, but they did the best they could — I think that mashing grapes shortly before a Communion service (analogous to baking a Communion loaf the day before) & serving unpasteurized grape juice that would (eventually) ferment should be approved — it is not appropriate to offer a cup of death to an alcoholic Re: wafers — it has been said that it… Read more »
Erika, I’m not sure what would have been sufficient, I doubt anything would have been actually. That’s not the point, though. The GS certainly feels that TEC has acted unilaterally without even bothering to consider them and sees this as collosal arrogance. It is a statement continually made by them. While I don’t question the consecration of Gene Robinson, it’s a bit disingenuous for TEC to be surprised at the worldwide reaction they were warned would happen. And claims that “We are a national Church and can do what we want” are also, I think, inappropriate. There is no national… Read more »
“And, as I have pointed out before, anyone who believes anything strongly on anything is, in that respect, a “fundamentalist”” For me, a fundamentalist is anyone who insists on a literal interpretation of Scripture, as written. It also implies a belief that anyone who doesn’t hold such a principle is beyond the pale. In that respect, the fundamentalism you perceive in “liberals” I would call extremism. It certainly includes a belief that anyone who disagrees is beyond the pale, but doesn’t include the idea that Scripture is to be taken literally as read. That’s why I don’t understand the difference… Read more »
“You can’t put a muffin in a monstrance! And besides, at the Fraction, you end up with little bits of Our Lord going all over the place:-) Posted by: Ford Elms on Monday, 16 July 2007 at 5:38pm BST” Re: the first point — that’s why, at the Eucharist on the days when we have benediction after Vespers, although we bake our own altar bread, we consecrate a Benediction host as well (which is broken afterwards & reserved) — Re: the second point — it depends on the bread, but in the words Orthodox priest (seeing the concern of a… Read more »
Remember there is more than one strain of fundamentalism and evangelicalism w/in Christianity. Fundamentalism first appeared in the late 1800’s out of the tent revivals in the UK and US as an intelligent and reasoned response to the Enlightenment. Wesley would be considered part of this movement. There are a number of formularies that cover the “fundamentals of faith” such as: 1. the inerrancy of the Bible, 2. the Virgin birth, 3. physical resurrection, 4. atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and 5. the Second Coming. My guess is many (most?) liberals will subscribe all these points with some… Read more »
Hi Ford: No conservative fundamentalist would agree with your definition of fundamentalist. Fundamentalists, like everyone else, see that the Bible includes history, poetry, parables, visions, etc. Figurative language is understood by Fundamentalists, like every other sound exegete, as being figurative, not literal. There are 3 principle characteristics of conservative fundies, as far as I can tell–and I’ve known a lot of “fundamentalists” in my time: 1. Fundamentalists believe that all of the Bible is inspired, not just the parts they like or agree with. I.e., they don’t believe that the word of God is contained in Scripture like gold mixed… Read more »
Just to clear up one thing, JPM: I’d read “Albion’s Seed” twice before I saw Jane Smiley’s piece. (And if you think that was bad, try Thomas Sowell’s “Black Rednecks and White Liberals” — the well-known American Black conservative produces an application of Fischer’s thesis that has to be handled with tongs.) I admit Fischer can be reductive, but I found the book to be a very helpful guide when I was a new and rather panicked immigrant to the rural American South.
Well, at least in USA, calling a believer a fundamentalist used to mean that they held to a certain literalistic and conservative reading of scripture as the only, final religious authority. The question of hermeneutics – methods and responsibilities – was either sidestepped, ignored, and/or denied in this fundamentalist approach. This sort of USA fundamentalist believer was only one stream of faith among many, across the diversities of those who followed Jesus of Nazareth – but of course, the real existence and worth of all the other streams were presumed insignificant among fundamentalists, except as signs of apocalyptic End Times.… Read more »
.The Windsor Report would set the bar for full LGBT inclusion at something beyond the scope of the Anglican Communion’s competence to determine for itself rather requiring consultation with its ecumenical partners.
Steven I agree with your comments about strong opinions, and that is not necessarily a bad thing. We toss words around like extremist and fundamentalist, but what I think we are all really worried about is violent or coercive manifestations. Ford, you made some good points. I think that one problem is that if one camp e.g. liberal TEC make an inclusive break, then others say they failed to listen adequately to them. Yet how often do we hear the converse being stated? e.g. How often do hear Sydney apologising for playing power politics to either its own parishioners or… Read more »
Ford – why do you keep saying “My Lord of Abuja”? Is it some kind of joke? I don’t say “My Lord of Grimsby” or any other such. These people are Lords of no one. If you are serious, then it is associating religion and people with feudalism and hierarchy. I have no time for it. People are people, and we are all as inadequate as each other. As for fundamentalism, the term seems more problematic than anything. If I use it I take it to mean a selective literalism by a bunch of people who declare to each other… Read more »
‘…1. Fundamentalists believe that all of the Bible is inspired, not just the parts they like or agree with. I.e., they don’t believe that the word of God is contained in Scripture like gold mixed in dross, something to be mined by peeling away the “uninspired” parts. Instead, the whole of Scripture is “golden …’ (end quote) In my experience ‘fundamentalists’ are highly selective. They particularly focus on personal morality which apparently is all about having –or rather not having sex. Institutional and corporate sin —like the American Government’s illegals wars and fat cat exploiters of the vulnerable and poor… Read more »
“why do you keep saying “My Lord of Abuja”?” Sarcasm. Consider his ’embarassing’ humility, his obvious lust for power, etc., and the English tradition of referring to bishops as ‘my lord’ because of the lordships that come with the job. Now imagine a sneer in my voice when I say it. Steven, “Fundamentalists believe that all of the Bible is inspired, not just the parts they like or agree with.” Thanks for proving my point! Chris, “I’m not sure where the beyond-the-pale line is drawn,” In my overwhelming experience, it is drawn where we don’t go through some kind of… Read more »
Hmmm. It seems that “fundamentalist” is a word susceptible to a wide variety of meanings, or at least, one that has a wide variety of meanings in the minds of posters at TA. I, for one, will continue to object to its use as a pejorative. I’ve known far too many “good” fundamentalists–liberal; conservative; religious; non-religious; and (horror of horrors) even low church, Southern Baptist, and/or Charismatic types abhorred at TA. Finally, I consider myself to be a fundamentalist–just as I consider almost everyone here to be a fundamentalist of one type or another. As noted, having strong opinions and… Read more »
I’m truly puzzled over what to make of Radner+. One the one hand, he does seem to be, as Charlotte puts it, “willing to distance himself from the hugger-mugger of the Network and its supporters.”
Yet on the other hand, not only was he a founder of the ACN, but he sits on the board of the IRD – one of the SCARIEST, ultra-rightwing political groups in the U.S. (and *that’s* saying something).
No matter how good he sounds, I’m not sure I’d trust him farther than I could throw him…
Thank you Ford, for your comment about “My Lord”. And now you have made your point explicit, please will you not repeat it.
Steven said
if we could only agree on what those fundamentals include
Of course, the original ‘Fundamentals’ was a polemical document on which only a tiny band of dispensationalists/millenarians could agree. It’s faintly ironic that the fundamentals were not fundamental to most Christians in the early C20.
Ford, God can use a variety of salvation experiences and they may be emotional. Mine was not, but there have certainly been moments when my experiences with God have been accompanied with strong emotion. I don’t see emotion as a spiritual marker though – what happens when emotions fade? I’ve never been a part of a charismatic church – nor attended the Sunday night service 😉 – so the slain in the Spirit idea is not part of my experiences. Help me out on the personal savior issue. If God knows the individual, calls the individual, works to sanctify the… Read more »
Ford:
Your response to Chris abounds in negative stereotypes and derogatory imaging. I remark on this because, while such things may be typical of some at TA, they are not generally typical of your posts–except perhaps in discussing Bp. Akinola (who seems to represent a veritable fount of evil in your mind).
Anyhow, I will look forward to the return of your more usual measured approach.
Steven
Steven yes, as a fundamentalist as defined by you, I find Jesus’ reported Summary of the Fundamentals very challenging and telling. “Love God and your neighbour as your self”.
I also find the Sermon on the Mount / Plain and especially the Beatitudes fundamental, along with the parables of the ‘kingdom’ a wonderful commentary on his Summary of the Torah.
I never fail to wonder at the Churches neglect of these, Jesus’ fundamentals, preferring their readings of some of the letters of Paul.
Mynsterpreost (=David Rowett), I think the dispensationalialism/millenalism came in later – and is rejected by many conservative Anglicans.
Steven, You might not like the stereotypes, even feel insulted by them, and for that I apologize. But please remember that these stereotypes, which I freely admit are sinful on my part and which I fight against, are based on my overwhelming experience. It has been quite rare for me, even here on TA, to meet up with Evangelicals who do not fit, in some fashion, these particular stereotypes. Chris, It is not a denial of our need for a relationship with God, just an attempt to reaffirm that salvation is corporate, not some contract between God and the individual.… Read more »
Mynsterpreost:
Really? Everything I’m reading indicates an initial very short list of mostly basic and historic Christian doctrines + a very high view of Scriptures + in some cases at least, a belief that ‘da end was near.
However, it seems that the movement was taken up (and later seemingly taken over) by Dispensationalists and their fellow travelers. Still, I think most of what the initial takers of the name “fundamentalist” believed would not have seemed strange or alien to most Protestants. I.e., these guys weren’t bunch of Hindus or some wierd Christian cultists.
Steven
L Roberts I always wonder what would have happened if Paul had walked and talked with Jesus the man. I expect we would have seen as many refining rebukes and clarifications as Peter and the other disciples experienced. I always think of Paul’s writings being autobiographical (his description of himself and his own reasoning) whilst the disciples were more biographical (their descriptions were written by others with Jesus as the editor). Our self perspective is always more flattering than how others see us. Paul was a driven man, and he shunted aside the responsbilities of an ordinary life in pursuit… Read more »
As for millennial and eschatological type movements, if you were in Karbala in 1844, an end-date shared with Christians, you might be one in the crowd expecting the return of the hidden twelfth Imam. It is from this violent time that eventually you get the very different Bahai faith. Sayyid Ali Muhammed Shrirazi claimed to be the Bab to that crowd, the perfect channel of grace to the returning hidden Imam coming to Karbala for a Holy War against all unbelief from 10th January 1845 onwards. The authorities took on this movement, some violent and some peaceful, and smashed it,… Read more »
One of the most beautiful things about God is not that he makes us perfect, but what God is capable of doing with such inadequate beings. God is the great pragmatist.
Thanks Cheryl. Makes me think.
Makes me think of RS Thomas’ line
‘…heaven of such imperfection made’
Ford: Interesting point on the subject of “corporate” vs. “personal” salvation. This is not a topic I’m unfamiliar with, but I can’t say that my thoughts are totally clear on the matter of how to interpret each Bible passage in relationship to this as a possible dichotomy. I think a lot of confusion can be avoided by recognizing that salvation is always via our incorporation into Christ. To be saved is to be “in Christ”. One cannot be “in Christ” without also being a member and part of “His body” the Church. Thus, to me this issue is–like the supposed… Read more »
Having looked again at the 12 volumes of ‘The Fundamentals’ I think that millenarianism still gets a very positive press. Dispensationalist hints are around, though, I admit, somewhat shrouded.
And the more I dig, the more I wonder just how ‘fundamental’ this stuff was even then – eg “I am aware that, if I undertake, to prove that Romanism is not Christianity, I must expect to be called “bigoted, harsh, uncharitable.” Nevertheless I am not daunted; for I believe that on a right understanding of this subject depends the salvation of millions.”
Fundamental?
“I don’t think you can have one without the other.” Nor do I, Steven, which is my problem with the “personal saviour” business. It seems to me to state that our salvation is a one-on-one with Jesus, not with the Church, but then I have a pretty high understanding of Church! Jesus didn’t Incarnate, live, die, rise, ascend, and send the Spirit for me. He did it for all of His Creation. That’s pretty basic, old fashioned stuff, not some New Agey naval gazing. I’m redeemed because I am part of His redeemed Creation. And my stressing ‘dancing’ against ‘crawling’… Read more »
Ford, I appreciate your stressing the communal aspect of Christianity and think some of those ideas are lost in parts of evangelicalism that at times become “me focused.” Look at much of the current praise & worship music; first-person pronouns appear more often than God, Jesus or Christ. This type of worship can at times be done out of chasing an emotion. It has its place, but that place is not central. But the individual does matter as seen by the time Jesus spent one-on-one with people. Christ brought salvation to me, an individual, so that I may join his… Read more »
David: You’re picking and choosin’ here. I also don’t agree with everything the late 19th/early 20th century religious fundamentalists believed (including the sentiment quoted), but it has certainly not been an unusual Protestant sentiment over the centuries–even (I think) by some Anglicans. The reverse has also been held in some RC circles. My point was merely that most of what they believed would be considered to be stock Christian doctrine–i.e., “mere Christianity” as C.S. Lewis would put it. As such, distinctives and peculiarities aside, they are not that different from the rest of us (who also have our distinctives and… Read more »
“Look at much of the current praise & worship music; first-person pronouns appear more often than God, Jesus or Christ. “
In “Why Catholics Can’t Sing”, Thomas Day comments on this. I think it says much about our culture that we so easily think we can speak with the voice of God.
Chris and Ford
You can have both the singular and the communal. Some souls need the communal (they have a strong social contact need). Other souls need the singular (hermits who find people overwhelming). Most of us need a bit of both, the blend varying from individual to individual, and even over their lifetimes depending on what development challenges God is throwing their way.