Episcopal Church Rejects Anglican Church Orders
The headline above is not mine; it is from the New York Times this morning.
Bottom line: The Episcopal Church bishops seem to have fudged once more, but many feel what they gave is not enough. The schismatic ship of the evangelical right was not given words which might have caused it to turn around.
You can read some interesting analysis of what they actually said, which the NYTimes article does not really "get" at Covenant, where we have five authors who have already done penetrating analysis of what this means.
My question: how will the Methodists and Presbyterians avoid this?
Bottom line: The Episcopal Church bishops seem to have fudged once more, but many feel what they gave is not enough. The schismatic ship of the evangelical right was not given words which might have caused it to turn around.
You can read some interesting analysis of what they actually said, which the NYTimes article does not really "get" at Covenant, where we have five authors who have already done penetrating analysis of what this means.
My question: how will the Methodists and Presbyterians avoid this?
Labels: Anglicanism, Schism
posted by Unknown at 6:40 AM
25 Comments:
Craig,
I've always said that the answer for me personally, is that I'm in the UMC until they kick me out. I don't think God "elected" another nation when Israel went astray. God may have chastised Israel by means of another nation. So I'm in "Israel" until "Israel" kicks me out. Whether other people take this tack or not, I cannot guarantee. I hope to lead by the example of my life and personal commitment. And then in the end, I'll trust in God to "do good from what was intended evil."
Yes, Tom, there is great wisdom in that frequent comment of yours. I pray that the Methodists and Presbyterians are better able to preserve the unity of the fellowship than the Anglicans.
The UMC will avoid it because of the pension plans in the church in America. Also, the "right" of methodism who want the denomination to listen to the voices of the global church won't support measures to assure that the global church has the same amount of input that the UMC in America has at the convening of general conference.
Thomast dropped in out of nowhere to hit the practical shot about pensions. Spoken like the true son of a Cokesbury saleswoman!
Craig, I don't know whether this will happen in the UMC. I am not really very worried about it. I guess I trust that God's work will prevail in the end, even if that has to wait until Jesus comes again to judge the living and the dead. I beg for mercy. In the mean time I abandon myself and my church to God.
Tom A,
Have you thought through the implications of your comparison of the UMC to Israel? I know you're just trying to get at the principle of how one behaves in the midst of apostasy, but in order for your principle to work, leaving the UMC would have to be like leaving Israel. Are you prepared to say that?
The Roman Catholics are prepared to say that. If they're right, we should all seriously think about rejoining the RCC. If they're not right, and the New Testament covenant people of God is not most fully expressed within a particular organizational structure and communion, then I don't think leaving the UMC would be like leaving Israel at all. It would be like making new friends within Israel. Unless, of course, the UMC is the successor to the RCC's claims. Heaven help us if that's the case. :)
Tom M
The Israel metaphor is problematic on a number of counts, but exile is not and the Christian must always feel in exile (Cf. Augustine, The Bible).
We shouldn't dismiss Thomas because he has the most penetrating analysis on here. The methodists will survive (in some sense) because all of the power is with the Americans. All of the power. Including the power to give Africans a voice. Also, nevertheless, the conservatives are in ascendancy in the UMC and so they might give voice to the Africans because it will only strengthen theirs and the liberals (I hope you understand that i use these terms very lightly, in many ways I consider myself a liberal methodist) will because ECUSA's or PCUSA's. There is also a sense that the population and the money within the UMC is with the conservatives so that the Western Jurisdiction (where most of the liberals are) will soon die out on its own.
I just wanted to point out the rightness of G Thomas.
I have always felt that the rightness of G Thomas is self-evident.
Dear Tom M.,
I'm glad I caught your attention with my provocative use of "Israel." I think that the UMC does claim legitmate heritage to Israel. I don't think that it claims sole legitimate heritage to Israel. As I heard one preacher at DYA (Duke Youth Academy) say, "The Pope needs the UMC because without it, he is only the pope of the ROMAN Catholic church, not the Catholic Church" (my paraphrase). I think this is your point about the question of "solicity" (is that a word?). This, Tom, is a good point. One I am about to think about for the first time: If the UMC is not the sole inheritor of Israel, then this would suggest that there are other appropriate places beside the UMC where Israel could be found and situated within. And yet, Israel was also made of up tribes (I'm making this up as I go along). The plurality of tribes within Israel may be a decent foothold for suggesting that within Israel there are still sub-groups that one ougth to be situated within. The tribe I am in is the UMC. So maybe I should say I'm sticking in the tribe of Israel called the UMC until they kick me out. I'm sure you will have some incisive comment or question that shows the sloppiness of my thinking.
I think in the end, I'm also quite pentecostal about this. The UMC is where God called me. By "call" I mean that God spoke to me. I do not mean audibly. I mean God spoke to the ears of my "gut." So in one sense, Matt is right, I am here until God speaks to me again. But at this time, the first word implied sticking it out, while trying to get the tribes back together so that the Catholic church and truly be the Catholic Church and not just the Roman Catholic church.
at the risk of being branded heretical (again) or ignored, why should the methodists / gods-frozen-chosen try to avoid this? why not preemptively act to create new unions. why not work to actively split the UMC, Anglican and Presby communions to instantiate a new union?
I believe in the holy catholic church. I also understand the importance of unity. I do. But I wonder how long we're going to pander to the right wing pharisees and work to maintain fragile unions that evermore lean to the right? Why not call this what it is? Christians choosing to establish fences and battlements around the law --love god, love people, make disciples-- to establish a power class based on religion rather than economics. After all if you gain enough gold you can challenge the economics, but no one can challenge god.
So my question is this: Why not be sectarian when the issue is as important as this?
For one thing, I think that there is a disengenousness in actively trying to split up a denomination. It is one thing to leave, it is another to try and force others to leave.
That is my pragmatic reason. My theological one goes into a pneumatology. If the church (any church) is merely a bureaucratic organization of the faithful, breaking it up is not a big issue: it could be just like a corporate take over. However, I feel like that is too efficient a task, too much like searching for profitability, like we are doing anything ourselves. The church is different from a corporation and so I don't think we should try and split it up: diversity cuts both ways: enemies cut both ways as does the command to love ones enemy.
Thursdays and to some extent Fridays are bad days for me. I will respond to all this on the weekend. So check back then.
Peace,
Tom
@Wilson,
Two friends are talking in bar one night. Friend A makes a subtly racist joke. Friend B says, "I love you man and I forgive you, but I can't tolerate your racist comments." Of course an argument ensues.
This is is more what I am advocating. The clear cut, active statement of both, "you are forgiven" and "go and sin no more" it's up to "the sinner" to sin no more, even in the midst of their forgiveness.It is a congenial, and dare I say historically christian split. By refusing to accept others, even and esp. the least of these, they have voluntarily placed themselves outside of the communion of the body. Excommunication isn't punishment, but discipline. I'm just suggesting we stop pandering to them and call it for what it is, voluntary excommunication. Let those of us, (yes, I realize this is terribly arrogant) who seek to maintain the unity of the church do so by forming new unions, rather than (re)enabling the stumbling of others.
Kevin,
I'm not sure what you mean by "right wing pharisees." I suspect I may be one of those myself.
My answer to the question of splitting would again be: the phrophets didn't go and try to make a new Israel. They stuck with the Israel they had. They spoke truthly to that Israel, and God used other nations actions to get Israel's attention, but never that I can remember was there an active attempt to create a new Israel in some other place. God never gave up on Israel.
I'm not sure my use of Israel as a reference to the UMC has held any water (given Tom M.'s silence, I'm assuming I'm so far gone that he has not thought it worthwhile to respond to my "tribal" argument). But I'm assuming it still does and so I'll stick with it until convinced otherwise. I think it is helpful here.
Tom
Let us try to define a distiction then between split and dizcipline. I am simply tired of the bullsh*t pandering. Let those who want leave the communion for they have already broken its trust. This isnt choosing a new israel its simply a refusal to enable those who want to be pharasaical about it to go and do so. Go with god. Israel will wait right here for your return. In fact while your off building sin free zones well throw a party for the offshoots of israel wh ran away so long ago.
Dear Kevin,
I'm not sure who your critiques are being leveled at. Who specifically or what suggestion or situation specifically are you speaking about when you say someone is trying to set up a "sin-free zone"? And who are these people who are then suggesting that they want to leave or someone should leave? I'm afraid I'm a little out of date with the MFSA and Good News debate right now (I'm assuming you're talking about one these groups). Are one of them suggesting leaving?
Peace,
Tom
@tom,
It seems to me there is a growing divide in the various communions regarding the place of homosexuals in the church. Not only their presence, but their ability to serve God.
They are, in effect attempting to identify homosexuality as a sickness, and a sin. Those afflicted with this "sickness of choice" are therefore unable to be in the church or serve the church.
Thus the church is constructed as a sin-free zone (or at least publicly-unacceptable-sin free zone, since we'll ordain divorcées)
It is these people --who are homophobes cloaked in poor theological rhetoric-- who wish to eclesiologically redefine the church --from hospital to shrine-- that are driving this coming split.
Let these people split. Let them walk away. They've already broken the trust of the communion, and in so doing self-excommunicated themselves.
So again I ask, why not let the homophobes split. let them walk away.
If I might offer an answer before Tom checks in, Kevin:
I understand the argument you are making. I, too, have concerns with those who justify schism, period, but especially on the grounds that they have no alternative because they must go and create a more pure household of God.
I think it is better to think about this at the categorical level and not focus on the specific content, which, in this case is sexuality. The issue is one that touches on Scriptural authority, our understanding of what is "given" in creation, how best to interpret Scripture in light of that "given," and what to do when we disagree about all of these.
Augustine has one answer to purity issues, and Donatists have another. Augustine's catholicity - his extraordinary patience and tolerance in view of the reality of a mixed earthly city and mixed Church - is the basis of our received tradition, as far as I can tell. And so the idea of schism seeking purity is not just untenable, but also not catholic.
But why can't we simply say, "leave!"
For similar reasons. A shepherd is given 100 sheep and expected to bring them ALL home. We can not simply tell Jesus when he asks, "And where are all the others?" that we told them to leave because they were such a pain in the ass. Just as we can't say we left them behind because we thought they were impure. We have to bring them all home to the one who entrusted them to us. Or at least do our damndest to do so.
Tom A,
My silence is due more to a teaching schedule than anything else. But I appreciate the fact that you're listening attentively and noticing my silence. :)
I don't think the plurality of tribes really helps you out. Switching tribes was impossible; it was determined by birth. If you became a Christian (were "born again") in the context of the UMC, then you might be able to draw an analogy between sticking in the UMC and sticking with the group that bore you. But you moved into the UMC.
And if a person was kicked out of ancient Israel, could that person then go off and form a new Israel? Or did that person need to beg for re-entry? If the UMC does kick you out, what are you going to do?
In what sense do you think the UMC can claim the legitimate heritage of Israel? Have you just uttered one of Phil's Duke heresies?
I don't think we can have this conversation about schism without dealing with our past. We're all products of the Reformation. Was the Reformation a huge ecclesial mistake, a betrayal of catholicity? And if it was, what does that mean for us? (The Reformation is particularly useful because it provides us with examples of both types of ruptures in communion: groups leaving of their own will and groups getting kicked out against their will.) Let's stop talking about "homophobes" for a bit and start talking about indulgences.
Tom M
First, Tom Mc., tell us about your teaching. What are you teaching and who? And what does this mean for your doctorate? And what do we need to do to get mentioned in the preface of your first book in a positive light?
;-)
Second, you said "Was the Reformation a huge ecclesial mistake, a betrayal of catholicity? And if it was, what does that mean for us?"
As you know because of our own dialogue about Calvin, I have been asking myself this question.
I think it is interesting to notice that the Reformation was a northern Europe thing - mostly germanic tribes with a long tradition of concern about the dead. I read recently that a study of wills and other public documents and architecture of the north vs. southern Europe (I believe (done by Diarmaid MacCulloch) revealed that the abuses of Eucharistic practices of the kind having to do with private communion, paid prayers for the dead, etc. were much more common in the north. The theory is that the problems with the sacraments that Calvin notes in his Letter to Sadoleto were significantly less common in the areas occupied by non-germanic tribes who did not have the long tradition of concern for the dead before being converted to Christianity.
I don't know if that theory holds water, but it helps me remember that the Reformation was an essentially northern affair that never really took root elsewhere. And the English Reformation was not simply the European Reformation with a different zip code; England's was influenced as much by geopolitical concerns as it was by the Lutheran and then (later) Reformed ideas that it adapted in forming the amalgam called Anglicanism.
I note the Thirty Years War and the English civil war and wonder if those weren't the bitter fruits of schism.
Was the Reformation "a betrayal of catholicity?" Was Calvin himself a schismatic? I think the answer can only be "yes." Newbigin brings out the heresy that Luther embraced in order to make the case for the Reformation in his Household of God. That heresy had to do with the substituting, in place of the biblical dialectic of holiness and sinfulness, the dualism of "in" and "out", the very dualism that Kevin raises implicitly above.
Was there another way? Could Luther and Calvin have resisted the abuses of Gospel and Sacrament without schism and heresy (of the kind noted above)? Like Newbigin, I am unable to imagine that different path. However, I am able to imagine the possibility of that path based on the ontology of peace we receive from Augustine, and reclaim in Milbank/Hauerwas.
Very well. Luther and Calvin are schismatics, and the English circumstances were different.
Now that we've established that, where do we go? (By "we," I suppose I only mean Protestants who don't place themselves in the English line [which I guess would be Anglicans and their schismatic siblings, Methodists]. That assumes that Wesley is to Anglicanism what Luther/Calvin are to Catholicism. I don't know if that holds any water. If it does, then the "where do we go?" question applies to Methodists, too.)
Tom M
As to my teaching, I'm teaching 9th-12th grade Bible at an international school in Tokyo. I'm planning on doing this for two years before returning to the States for a doctorate.
Tom M
I don't believe it is correct to think of Wesley in relation to Anglicanism as Luther/Calvin were to the European Reformation. He was very catholic in much of his thinking and resisted the divisive impulses of his Calvinist colleagues. He fought hard to keep his Methodists within the Anglican church. Charles fought even harder. I suggest Thomas Cromwell and Thomas Cranmer together are the closest analogues to Calvin and Luther.
Yet, in this country, Methodists are clearly the result of schism coincident with the political schism between the colonies and king. Moreover, syncretism with free church evangelicals and Calvinistic spinoffs have forged a tradition that participates in the schismatic fruits of the European Reformation even if it has its own unique heritage. In other words, I think Methodists are in the same boat as other Protestants, but not because of Wesley but because of the alloy of Wesleyanism and American free church populism formed on the fruited plain.
"Where do we go, now?" Where do you suggest?
Methodists are historically contingent denomination who have lost their contingency. They were first contingent on C of E: gone. Then they were contingent on the frontier and rural life: gone. Then they were contingent on ecumenism and mainline authority: gone. I do not think Wesleyanism can work without a valid contingency and yet there is a history within Methodism of struggle which gives it the tools to survive where I think Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and Lutherans only have the tools of superiority (that is a poor word, but I don't have another right now).
@craig,
I'm not to good at being very nuanced in my writing on the first go around. Please forgive me for this.
I realize that my statements can be interpreted in a heretical in/out way. This is, however, not what I mean / intend. I spoke of the way in which they have broken the trust of the communion, and "excommunicated" themselves. This is, perhaps a bad choice of words. I do not believe there is a sense of in/out, only sense of vector based discipleship that is based on open-set theory. (Which is my attempt at being as precise as possible to say that there is no in / out, only the daily moment by moment choice to be discipled or sin. it's not a defined set, only an open ever-changing set. --this is all far easier to understand with the diagrams--)
All of which is to say, I wish to say that the voluntary excommunication of the those who are trying to redefine the church is found not in a singular action or belief that brands them heretic, but rather the ongoing choice to find a new vector, away from orthodoxy.
That said, perhaps, "leave!" is again, the wrong term. But refusing to identify the heretical and unorthodox vector they are taking only enables their sin. Can we not embrace church discipline to both describe and defend orthodoxy, without abusing orthodoxy by converting it into a weapon?
I'll take Tom's bait and agree with Craig that the reformation was schismatic. Given my own tendencies now to work with the system (whether that's an ecclesial system or other), I probably would have stuck it out with the Roman catholic church. Wesley was partially schismatic and partially not. As Craig said, he never left the CoE himself. He did "ordain" Coke and Vassey to begin a new church in America given the revolutionary war (by the way Wilson, let's not forget the Sunday Service that Wesley sent with Coke...a revision of the BCP). I don't know what to think of what Wesley did with Coke, etc. But we have it and I'm part of it now.
What do we do now? We work with our brothers and sisters in other denominations in as many ways as we can. I regularly said that while building a Habitat house with five other church in Michigan was not full visible organic union, it wasn't nothing either. It was a step toward visible union. We keep doing both.
Kevin, I'm still not tracking with your argument. I think you say that some group who doesn't like homosexuals have somehow left orthodoxy and that in doing so they have de facto broken a covenant with the church and are no longer part of the church. What covenant have they broken and what orthodoxy have they left? You suggest discipline as a means for correcting this. What disicpline is not being used? I think that these same arguments are being made from the other side. I'm inclined to think that those arguments are closer to the truth about covenant and discipline (i.e. the covenant of the Book of Discipline clearly says that homosexual unions will not be blessed and that individuals living in a homosexual union will not be pastors).
Post a Comment
<< Home