KenEND OF THE LINE?
The lovely and talented Leanne Larmondin, editrix of Canada's Anglican Journal, sounds like she's just about out of patience:
Members of the Council of General Synod have some critical decisions ahead of them at their regular meeting next month. This will be only their second meeting together since they were elected at last year’s triennial meeting of General Synod. They will truly be put to the test when they are called on to vote on the request from the primates of the Anglican Communion that the Canadian church “voluntarily withdraw” its members from the Anglican Consultative Council. They will also consider whether or not to continue funding the Council in the event that the Canadian church does pull out of the international body.
Something I would have no objection to. Canada can't spare the jack what with being 500 gr in the hole. And not to go financial Donatist or anything but I suppose that most orthodox Christians would rather do without apostate money. Larmondin would apparently prefer to keep that scratch at Church House rather than spend it on such closed-minded people as she's forced to share a tradition with.
Make no mistake – the die was cast long before the Canadian and U.S. primates boarded their flights to Northern Ireland. Although the Canadian primate arrived with an awareness of the depth of diversity in his church’s opinions of the Windsor Report, sadly, he did not find a receptive audience for the Canadian perspective. It was noted by the head of the church in southern Africa, Archbishop Njongonkulu Ndungane, that many of his colleagues had arrived at the Northern Ireland meeting with “their minds made up” on homosexuality and the meaning of the Windsor Report; their positions “entrenched and irreconcilable.”
It's called the Word of God, Double L. Many of us just don't think it's a good idea to edit God unless there's a pillar of cloud and/or fire nearby telling us it's okay. We're funny that way. But since Larmondin can't bring herself to say what she wants to say, that Third Worlders are bigots, she's forced to strap on her tinfoil miter and do the whole chicken dinner, conservative American foundation money song-and-dance once again:
Many of his fellow primates from the so-called Global South – Asia, South America and in particular, the church provinces of Nigeria, the Southern Cone (based in Argentina) and Central Africa – turned up wanting blood from Canada and the U.S. and would settle for nothing less. Nigerian Archbishop Peter Akinola – who is said to represent 17 million Anglicans in a country whose majority Muslim population reportedly objects to churches’ softening their stances on sexuality – is the one of the most vociferous opponents of the acceptance of homosexuality in the Anglican Communion. It was widely reported that wealthy American conservatives were in constant contact with many of these primates, who later reportedly held a celebration dinner to toast the disciplining of the Western churches. While such stories sometimes take on a life of their own, enough quotes emerged from within and outside the meeting that many conservatives (both among the primates and in the wider church) feel they scored a win. Their glee has been undisguised.
Undisguised, maybe, but not exactly glee, Double L. A lot of us wanted the primates to drop the hammer immediately and send Hutch and the Grizz home as soon as they got there. ECUSA and ACC have had more last chances than Larry King has had wives and we felt that enough was enough. We got a little, Double L, but we didn't get what we wanted.
It is distressing that the disagreement over the role of gays and lesbians in the church has been turned into a blood sport between provinces. Once, observers of the early church were said to have exclaimed, “See how these Christians love one another.” Reasonable onlookers today would find that love sadly lacking in this situation.
Maybe so if you think that "love" means giving your kids candy any time they ask for it or referring to their smoking, heavy drinking, drug use and sleeping around as "life choices" that you need to "affirm."
As many observers have noted, there is some irony inherent in the North American churches having been asked to withdraw – or dis-unite – from what is commonly understood to be an instrument of unity – the Anglican Consultative Council. It is ironic, too, that the body making the request, the primates’ meeting, is also a so-called instrument of unity.
It's even more ironic that some North American liberal Anglicans don't seem to realize that their Anglican standing is hanging by an unraveling thread and that the Newry primates statement was a nice way of telling them that.
The primates themselves know that they have no right to make demands of either the Council or of individual provinces – nor should the church grant such power to the 38 men who lead the world’s 70 million Anglicans.
Actually, the primates are only making demands of no more than three million or so of the world's 70 million Anglicans, Double L. You guys, the Americans and your liberal European supporters are the only ones in the Communion who are rewriting the Bible.
Put simply, if CoGS members vote to withdraw the Canadian representatives from the Anglican Consultative Council, then, for better or for worse, the conversation continues (or ceases) without us.
As the engineers say, "That's not a bug, that's a feature."
What would pulling out of the Anglican Consultative Council mean?
It would mean that you would not be allowed to attend its meetings until you were invited back.
Would it give the other provinces and the Communion some breathing space, as some of the primates suggested in an attempt to put a not-so-awful spin on the meeting?
Probably.
Would it be a chance for the North Americans to pull back from their decisions on gay clergy and same-sex blessings, in order to preserve unity?
Yes, although ECUSA and ACC won't take that chance since that would require them to admit that they were wrong and their respective secular cultures would never forgive them.
Or would it be one of those marriage separations that amounts to dead time, awaiting the final divorce decree?
Hopefully.
Will three years apart be just enough time for the churches of the Global South to discover that they have more in common with each other than with the Western world?
I would think so although I would add Canadian and American conservative parishes and dioceses to this question since many of these have more in common with the churches of the Global South than they do with churches of the liberal western world. Look how many of them fervently desire African bishops.
Would three years apart result in the North American churches discovering that perhaps their differences with their counterparts render the idea of a worldwide Anglican Communion a quaint anachronism?
You're getting there.
Would ceasing to fund the Council be seen to be petulant, or simply a reasonable stewardship decision? Why would Canadian money be acceptable when its members are not?
See above. Just tell Church House to keep its cash home, Double L. We know the ACC needs it and the Anglican Consultative Council isn't going out of business any time soon.
And, finally, if the North American churches decide, instead, that the primates’ request is invalid and they continue to try to meet as a worldwide body with their fellow Council members, will their presence so distress others that they find themselves at a half-empty table?
Yup.
It is often repeated that Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the former archbishop of Cape Town, said that the glue that kept the Anglican Communion together is that, “We meet.” Once, when the former Canadian primate Archbishop Michael Peers retold that anecdote, someone commented wryly, “Pretty thin glue.” Archbishop Peers responded, “But what if someone says, ‘I won’t meet?’ That is the end.”
Pray for the members of the Council of General Synod, since the end might be near.
You may be right, Double L. For the ACC and ECUSA anyway.
Submitted by Marion R.
at 3/24/2005 1:57:41 PM| We met. |
Submitted by craig
at 3/24/2005 3:33:41 PM| Once again we see that liberal Protestantism has no prism by which to interpret events except that of politics, money, and power. The idea that Africans might stand purely on principle and belief is unthinkable to them, so they have to imagine conspiracies or concoct just-so stories to explain them. |
Submitted by Ken
at 3/24/2005 3:43:30 PM| So Canada has a "depth of diversity" which instantly transforms in to a singular Canadian "perspective" and never reveals any opinion but one. Diversity? How about "hypocrisy"? The homosexualist mind is small, never forget, though they claim Christians are small-minded. In fact, virtually every complaint they have against Christians is becoming more clear as they realize the Anglican Communion will not play their games. |
Submitted by Peter C.
at 3/24/2005 5:11:26 PMThis is as true today as it was when it was written: I make this apology for the Anglicans whom as Christian gentlemen I greatly revere, that the loose teaching of a great many of the prominent Anglican theologians are so hazy in their definitions of truths, and so inclined toward pet heresies that it is hard to tell what they believe. The Anglican Church as a whole has not spoken authoritatively on her doctrine. Her Catholic-minded members can call out her doctrines from many views, but so nebulous is her pathway in the doctrinal world that those who would extend a hand of both Christian and ecclesiastical fellowship dare not, without distrust, grasp the hand of her theologians, for while many are orthodox on some points, they are quite heterodox on others. - St. Raphael (Hawaweeny) of Brooklyn, 1912 |
Submitted by IB Bill
at 3/25/2005 6:25:52 AM| I've had a few discussions with the liberal folks on and off line. My sense is they are sincere, as sincere as we are. As I've mentioned before, post-Dromantine, they are at last speaking plainly. This is encouraging because now we can disagree plainly. I'm not as willing to dismiss them as non-Christians as I was. They sincerely believe that justice requires ordination / marriage for homosexuals, and that the Biblical verses don't matter or are easily eluded. They can argue coherently about church unity. What they've been unable to tell me is this: After you undermine scripture and church authority, what are you left with? As a former non-Christian, my sense is if you take away too many of these pillars, among them church authority and wide swaths of scripture, you're left with the pretty sayings of a crucified carpenter. Christian faith is rooted in the experience at Pentecost and in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ -- astonishing claims. If we experience the baptism of the Holy Spirit, then the scriptures are opened, and if you pursue it logically, the experience of the Holy Spirit on mankind over time leaves you with something like the catholic church, of which Anglicanism is / was one branch. But the liberals I sense strongly look directly to the words of Jesus and tend to ignore the rest, specifically anything Jesus says that would promote the concept of social justice. And since we believe in Jesus and Jesus said some pretty radical things, things which are still radical, then it becomes in a way difficult to argue with the liberals. I do think separation is necessary. They should be left to God for him to deal with, and God has a way of working with people even when they're off the beam. It's called grace. |
Submitted by Peter C.
at 3/25/2005 8:32:31 AMIB Bill, what you have hit on is not only the prime fault of the liberals, but of Protestantism in general. By ignoring the work of the Holy Spirit which has guided the Church through the centuries, they are, in effect, refusing to allow the Holy Spirit to guide them, as well. This is the very reason why there are thousands upon thousands of Protestant sects in the world and why there can never be true unity among them. Jesus Christ was perfect because, although he had both a human will and a divine will, they were in perfect sync. For us, the process of bringing our will into co-operation with the will of God, in becoming more Christ-like, is called synergy. In this process, we are guided by the experience of all the saints who have gone before us: “Forefathers, fathers, patriarchs, apostles, preachers, evangelists, martyrs, confessors, continent ones, and every righteous spirit in faith made perfect, especially our holy, undefiled, exceedingly blessed, glorious Lady Theotokos and ever Virgin Mary.” By denying the work of the Holy Spirit in the Church through these individuals, Protestants are left with only their own intuition to guide them. The repeated cries by the liberals, indeed, of all Protestants, that the Holy Spirit must be behind all their innovations are, in fact, desperate but futile attempts to replace the will of God as the guide of the Church with their own. That placing of themselves before God is nothing more than the deadliest sin of pride. Pride is the sole source of true schism. It is pride that will separate ECUSA from the Anglican Communion. It is pride that caused and continues to cause the explosion of individual sects after the “Reformation.” It is pride that separated and continues to separate the Anglican Communion from the Patriarchate of Rome. It is pride that separated and continues to separate the Patriarchate of Rome from the rest of the Church. It is only by accepting God's grace, by allowing Him to guide us and by allowing his energies to work through us, that schisms will be healed. |
Submitted by Sibyl
at 3/25/2005 1:03:40 PM| Peter C, I have greatly appreciated and learned so much from your comments. However, I'm struggling greatly with the puzzle of whether the Holy catholic church, apostolic and universal, that we confess is actually physical material entity or an ideal, a strictly spiritual entity. Perhaps the Bride of Christ will only become a reality upon the return of the Bridegroom. I do not have faith in the works of men and the organizations they build. I've been in many kinds of churches: home churches,charismatic, mainline protestant, now Ecusa and have seen wheat and tare in each church and individual at times (I'm not excepting myself). The agendas, motives and ambitions of the human heart too often get in the way of the Holy Spirit. Jesus did not committ himself to man because He knew what was in man, says the Scripture. I see flickering lamps, hearts aflame with the love of Christ, but these flames to be individually and continually refilled. The corporate institutions are places of struggle and conflict, hidden sins and quests for recognition and power. The church and its people are rarely pure and beautiful for very long. We miss the mark and quench the Holy Spirit, and let our flames flicker and sometimes go out individually and corporately as a church. The book, Miracle in Darien, is a story about an Episcopal church in Darien CT in the 1970s, when Fr. Terry Fullham proposed to the vestry that they actually let Christ be the head of His Church. So they decided they would all be 'one' and only decide anything prayerfully, if all agreed. If there was no agreement, they all went home to pray some more. Noone dominated and noone was ignored, they all moved in one accord. It was a grand experiment and I wonder if the principals he used then are still being practiced. Yes, I believe in the unerring Word, use the tradition of the Church as a guide, and know that Christ prayed we would be One and would be if we were obedient and loved one another. But I am struggling with the idea of catholicism. |
Submitted by Ken
at 3/25/2005 2:58:14 PM| Sibyl - I'm not Peter, but if I may venture a thought or two. The Church can never be "purely spiritual", since her Lord was in the flesh. There is no "invisible Church" in opposition to a "visible" or "institutional" Church. I do think you are asking the right questions: what does the blatant and obvious sin among us mean with respect to the ontological character of the Church? Is this organization of humans really the "bride of Christ"? Perhaps if I, a sinner forgiven yet still prone to sin, can call myself a Christian, then the Church, filled with people just like me, is really the Bride of Christ. You allude to the parable of the tares and the wheat and that is certainly the situation at hand. The great question, of course, is the one upon which Anglicanism is currently foundering. By what authority shall we say, "This is the word of God"? Several people who regularly post here have different answers to that question, but I submit the idea of catholicism (small c is correct, here) depends upon finding the correct answer. |
Submitted by Christopher Hathaway
at 3/25/2005 7:48:23 PM| I wonder if anyone has heard an episcopal priest or bishop speak out on behalf of Terri Schiavo, an innocent being cruely executed by the State, something I would think quite significant this day. Has anyone even heard a prayer for her in church? I am beginning to wonder if there is any salt or light left in this church. |
Submitted by Allen Lewis
at 3/25/2005 11:54:34 PM| Archbishop Ndugane notes that many of his colleagues had arrived at the Northern Ireland meeting with “their minds made up” on homosexuality and the meaning of the Windsor Report; ... . And I suppose Hutch and PB Griswold did not arrive with their minds made up on the subject? Sure, they mouth their platitudes about diversity and yet nowhere in either the ECUSA or the ACofC is disagreement with the "party line" tolerated in any fashion. So the Global South primates were not willing to call "bad" "good." I applaud them for that stand. |
Submitted by Sasha
at 3/26/2005 12:48:10 AM| Allen Lewis and Sibyl are both correct (also, Christopher Hathaway is to be commended regarding Terri Schiavo-Schindler who is indeed being murdered, like it or not!): I personally can't accept that any denomination (be it Protestant, Romanist, or Orthodox) can 'per se' claim to be Christ's bride (a major point why I'm prepared to not be in "communion" with a specific denomination more and more...). Sibyl's idea is much to be lauded, especially in theory; however, in practise there's reason for worry - what about those "wolves in sheep's clothing" (be they open unbelievers, or more sneaky types à la Griswold, Hutchison, Morgan, Hallowell or Carnley, speaking within only the Anglican denomination) getting in and doing the terrible harm they've been doing? |
Submitted by Sasha
at 3/26/2005 12:50:33 AM| Also, wasn't "diversity" supposed to mean relative to high/broad/low church without however differing on basic beliefs?!? What's being done in that word's name is tantamount to saying that Christians can be in "communion" with non-Christians!!!! |
Submitted by GB
at 3/27/2005 10:03:35 PM| I would hope that the Primates, being top Church leaders, would have arrived at the meeting with their minds made up on the subject of homosexuality. The Christian religion has never allowed anything other than "toleration" at the most for the practice of open homosexuality by lay people, and has never allowed it openly for the clergy. Anyone who says otherwise is stating a falsehood. |
Submitted by Robert+
at 3/28/2005 10:31:51 AM| Christopher, Not to take away from the topic under discussion here. But I wanted to respond to your comment. I am an Anglican (ECUSA) priest who made the intention of the Maundy Thursday Mass for Terri. I asked that, as we prepare to be fed with the Bread of Life, we hold in prayer a young woman who cannot be fed. I prayed that the Lord, who is author of our Heavenly Banquet, nourish and strengthen her. Lord, have mercy on her. Lord, have mercy on us. |