Reluctantly, very reluctantly, I have been drawn back to a consideration of where the international polity is heading. Drawn by the odd, indeed very odd actions of Archbishop Rowan Williams. He has in the last month, set up a meeting, bishops only of course, eletism is not a sin in England it is part of the religion, in New York. The participants are to come up with something, no one is sure what. He has disavowed his own, seminal work, on the issue of lesbian / gay inclusion. He appears to have discovered the doctrine of exclusion.
It seems to me that I am describing what I call the, "sin of institutionalism." That is, putting a structure (Anglican Communion, Lambeth party time, whatever) above the prophetic voice of the Gospels. This is simply wrong, in fact, it is exactly what the parable of the Good Samaritan rebukes.
I fear ABC has fallen into that sin. He appears so desperate to appease the non-global South, that he will sacrifice his own ideas and faith to do it. Of course along the way he seems quite willing to sacrifice our lesbian and gay folk. In Africa, and especially Nigeria , "sacrifice" is a literal description of an abhorrent reality. Rom, Jews, Lesbians, and Gays have experienced this before -- frequently.
So, here we have the evil of institutionalism -- it puts a structure over the worth of persons. And it must, therefore appease the bullies. After all, the bullies are quite willing to pull the structure down.
For someone of the current ABC's undoubted gifts to fall into the trap is sad. It is also the situation we seem to confront. Of course, I could be wrong. We might still see some backbone development. Invitations to Lambeth might still appear in mail boxes in New Hampshire and New Westminster . The message to the "Windsor Compliant" could still be that they have no place to go outside of their province and that meetings without layity, deacon and priests are meaningless. But that would mean risking the institutional structures and I simply do not see that as a form of courage on offer.
Why then are we here? Well, in part I think because His Grace is part of the government. England remains desperate to maintain the illusion of empire. The established church is a part of its programe to do this. So, if Nigeria, with the encouragment of the Anglican communion provence passes anti-homosexual laws nearly that completely violate decent conduct, and not too incidentally the Charter of Human Rights, that can be ignored to keep the non-global South bullies in the fold.
I am learning that whatever form the eventual ressolution of the issues before us take, the idea of the archbishop as a nexus of unity is simply not going to work. Canterbery is part of the government. Its occupant Cmust put institution first. Our mission is that of Nathan, Paul and Jesus, to call the powerful to account, not accomidation. Time to find another way I think.
I should be pleased to hear what you think.
Jim
Profile Information
- JimB
- I am an Anglo-catholic Episcoplain layman, a lay contemplative, a musician, and a completely doting grandfather. New slogan for the election cycle: Vote for Cthulhu -- don't settle for the lesser evil!
9 comments:
Sorry, Jim, you lost me completely here. Couldn't disagree more. Yet, I wonder if our disagreements might be more productive than any agreement here, so perhaps it might be useufl to unpack our disagreement a bit.
First, on the prophetic call issue. This argument has, of course, been central to supporters of 'same-sex' measures and has he benefit of sounding both courageous and faithful to Scripture. I just can't even conceive how this is a prophetic call because, last time I checked, the prophets called for an intensified adherence to Scripture, not the other way around. Given the fact that I really don't think TEC has proven its case about same-sex measures, I can't see how this can possibly be a prophetic call. It does sound suspiciously like a call to go it alone, which is precisely what got us into this mess in the first place.
Second, as far as the sin of institutionalism, I think this is a misreading of what ++Williams is up to, but it is an interesting misreading. That is, you seem to be reacting to this with an in-built suspicion of top-down solutions. I don't grant this is what ++ Williams is up to, but it seems that you do. Yet, can I suggest that, even if I accept this view as true, it is every bit as dominating when a section of the Church attempts to impose its will on rest of the Church (a large part of it of which disagrees that this is the direction the Church should be going) by claiming a prophetic call? To a conservative, the actions of the Communion is nothing more or less than saying to a pushy member of the Communion to back off.
Lastly, I find your comment about realizing that the ABC can't be the focus of unity really quite funny. Not so much because of you, but because the line of argument by many liberals over the last few years has been that only communion with the ABC is the measure of unity in the Anglican Communion. On both EV and OEBB, I've steadfastly argued that this is an insufficient basis for unity. Now that the ABC has taken a harder line position on the TEC, liberals suddenly realize that the ABC isn't a sufficient ground for unity. Oddly, I feel vindicated. That is, almost certainly unfair to you because I can't remember you arguing such nonsense, but I hope you can appreciate the irony I see.
Peace,
Phil
Phil,
I don't recall asserting that the decision to order +New Hampshire was prophetic. In fact, I think the decision to consider such an ordination taken some years before was, but I admit I have been wrong before. My view on the institutionalist is that it would not matter. The institutionalists of their day tried to muffle Nathan, Jeremiah, Jesus, Paul, Peter and a host of others.
"That is, you seem to be reacting to this with an in-built suspicion of top-down solutions." Yup! It is clear to me that from Luther who was definitely not on the top, from Jesus who was near the bottom, to Paul who fell from the heights, to Jeremiah, and all through the history of the faith, I don't see top down. Do you?
So tell me, what imposition did TEC attempt. +Gene made it clear from the begining that if he was not acceptible in England he would not attend Lambeth or if possible that he would accept a diminished role, possibly as a silent observer. No one I know of has demanded that he or any other lesbian / gay cleric be given jurisdiction outside the US, even is so much as an invitation to preach. No one that I know of has demanded that our women be accepted in African provinces that reject them. No one has ever linked any recognition or funding or anything else to acceptance. We merely asked that we not be foreced to accept another view. No one has forced or attempted to force dissenting bishops to accept +Gene in the US.
The great lie that many have fallen for is the mean old Episcopal church demanding concessions from the poor beleagured orthodox. The simple fact is it aint true. It makes a great polemic, and the Nutwork types are good at it, but it is not true.
FWIW
jimB
On the prophetic comment, this was the line I was reacting to:
putting a structure (Anglican Communion, Lambeth party time, whatever) above the prophetic voice of the Gospels.
I had taken this as a reference to the commonly offered liberal argument that the reason why TEC had to forge ahead on the same-sex issue, even if the rest of the church wasn't read, because this was a prophetic mission on TEC's part to address the injustices inflicted on gays and lesbians by the Christian church. On re-reading the passage, I concede you may have meant a more general comment about the prophetic voice of the Gospel and I may have read in the link to the liberal argument I cite above. Is this what has caused this confusion?
Now, as for whether TEC has attempted to impose anything on the rest of the Communion. Well, if we're talking about a top down solution, nothing at all. There has been no pretense that TEC had the right or the ability to do that.
Yet, those who have been promoting this agenda as prophetic aren't just making neutral claims either. That is, implicit in the idea of a prophetic call is the assumption that what one is advancing is from God and, hence, should win out over the benighted ideas of one's less prophetic fellows. This is taking rather the theological high road and rather expects that everyone else will realize it sooner or later.
In this light, if we look at GC 2003, by acting in this allegedly prophetic way and by fairly clearly disregarding Lambeth 1998 and the protests of the churchs with whom TEC was Communion with, TEC was trying to lead by example to a result that was very different from what many members of the Anglican Communion believed. Now, this could be just prophetic leadership, or it could be manipulation, depending on who you're talking about. Yet, there is a presumptuousness to it which hardly makes TEC an innocent victim of the sin of 'institutionalism'.
Besides, if I might be so rude to point out, there are more than enough 'instiutionalists' who have placed a greater concern with canon law than in reconciling those who, in conscience, were disturbed by GC 2003. That particular sin cuts both ways, as I'm sure you'll agree.
Peace,
Phil
"Besides, if I might be so rude to point out, there are more than enough 'instiutionalists' who have placed a greater concern with canon law than in reconciling those who, in conscience, were disturbed by GC 2003. That particular sin cuts both ways, as I'm sure you'll agree. "
Let me say that I don't think I suggested that the sin is uniquely conservative. After all, I live in the same country as the bishop of Pennsylvania after all.
We might not agree about who if anyone is seeking reconcilliation. But we can certainly agree that there are bad actors on both sides.
More on prophetic voices anon.
FWIW
But(!) your conclusion that this means that TEC was attempting to, “lead by example” ignores a very definite sense in both our discussions and official papers like the Nottingham documents that TEC recognizes that its understanding is limited to its borders. That is, the cultural realities of the other provinces matter, and must to be respected.
TEC is, in fact, hyper—sensitive to other provinces cultural matrixes. I could wish we were a touch less so as this inhibits our missionary efforts.
But, even then, if many of us thought or at least hoped that we would eventually see much of the communion come our way, we were equally prepared to discover we were wrong.
I am sorry, but I think calling this some sort of attempt to impose our will is a way big stretch.
FWIW
jimB
I never said that TEC's official position was ever at fault here. They have clear and frequently said that this is a provincial decision which need not affect other other provinces.
Yet, I don't think this kind of institutional reasoning is good enough for our case. That is, if we look at broader ecclesogical issues, stripped of institutional concerns, we still have a problem. If we accept that the Communion (or for that matter the whole Church of Christ in the world as it transcends denominational boundaries, we are called as followers of Christ to bear each others burdens and not do things that will cause another to stumble. It is this sense of the Communion as a body which cannot help but be affected by the actions of another part of the body that I'm thinking of. This is a more organic than institutional model I'm arguing, but it explains why I (who, as a conservative and a support of the Windsor Report, would presumably back an institutional model of church leadreship)object so strenuously to GC 2003 and why I argue that it's action was injurious to the body as a whole.
The irony, of course, is that we seemed to have whirled around on ourselves. You seem to be arguing an institutional view of the Communion, while I'm arguing an organic one. This is a telling development because I think this is central to what I view as your mis-reading of the Windsor Report. I don't think +Wright or the ABC are being institutionalists because the ecclesiology in the Windsor Report is so fundamentally organic in its imagry. That is why I think your accusation that +Wright and the ABC are caving in for institutional reasons entirely off the mark.
Peace,
Phil
One minor point The Archbishop of Canterbury isn't part of the Government. He is a member of the House of Lords -so sits in the Legislature (nearest equivalent is the Senate in the US) -but he isn't a government minister. Indeed he is often a leading opposition person! I'm not sure the governemnt over here is particularly pro church or christianity!
Dave,
Noted. I guess that we all could learn a bit about each other's countries. I appreciate the correction.
FWIW
jimB
No problems -it's a very confusing system with lots of remnants from a bygone era. I wonder what the Cof E would have looked like if it had been disestablished?
Post a Comment