Steve_F

Personally I think a schism (feeling quite pretntious today) in the church would be quite good fun for the non-brainwashed amongst us. It may serve to expose the whole bunch esp conservatives) as the frequently vicious, ignorant bunch that they are.

CJD

As far as the media coverage bit is concerned, so long as those who affirmed Robinson's consecration are described as the "Christian Church" or "Episcopalian" or "Anglican," they will be receiving all the justification they desire.

The issue is ecclesial, not political. That's the whole problem. It's not about mere labels like "liberal"(or "progressive") and "conservative"; it's about who is in and who is out.

In the words of Machen, "But how shall so anomolous a situation be brought to an end? The best way would undoubtedly be the voluntary withdrawal of the liberal ministers from those confessional churches whose confessions they do not, in the plain historical sense, accept."

When certain folks have clearly left the historic church to which they claim to belong, why must they be so coy? Why don't they just leave? I think the answer will leave us holding such solipsists in suspicion.

livius drusus

Agreed. And good for its adherents (in this country, at any rate) who seem to be very much in favor of this progressive move.

There was a thread some time ago which linked to this fascinating article on sexuality issues in the Church of England. The article mentions a pamphlet called The Body's Grace which serves as a kind of handbook for Anglican liberals. It's actually a speech Rowan Williams, current Archbishop of Canterbury, made to the Lesbian and Gay Christian Association in 1989 and is very much worth the read.

livius drusus

I can't think of a single denomination that has remained doctrinally static since its inception. Change is a given. The fact that there is always resistance to it doesn't mean it must always result in fragmentation.

Besides, if you read the link above, you can see that many people do not believe they are leaving the historic church, but rather bringing it closer in line to Biblical intent as well reviving a greatly diminished social relevance.

Calzaer

Pfft. Anglicans. How can any Anglican SERIOUSLY believe their church is right when the only reason they're not still Catholics is because Henry 8 wanted a divorce?

CJD

Commmme ooonnn, livius. This isn't about "dynamic" vs. "static." This is about "dynamic" vs. "having left the building."

Creedal orthodoxy is not an iron gate; it is an invisible, flexible perimeter. The secta una in New Hampshire just placed a call: they're on the moon! Why don't they leave and formulate the "Worldly and Individualistic Anglican Province of America" or something to that effect?

The "biblical intent"? Whatever. The whole point of creeds and confessions of a church is that a member confesses that that particular creed or confession actually captures the biblical intent better than others. That's the whole point. You say you don't think so? Well, you can leave.

However, you are right, schism is not the answer. But it seems to me that if Robinson truly loved the church of Jesus Christ he would have deferred. As it is, he now comes across (as one put it on NPR this morning) as a power-hungry, politically motivated demagogue.

Better yet, why don't they break off and join the UUA? They have more in common there than any other Anglican communion worldwide.

CJD

Clutch

Which is it? Flexible perimeter? or Like it or leave? Make up your mind.

Of course the question is just how radical a departure this is. For its proponents, obviously inclined to see same-sexual orientation as more like eating shellfish and wearing mixed fabric than like bearing false witness or killing, it seems like an overdue revision to a doctrine inimical to Jesus' fundamental message.

You can pound the table and insist that they are "on the moon", of course; you can declare -- from your specially enfranchaised position -- that they are no longer Anglicans theologically. But this amounts only to announcing your disagreement, and not to any serious argument.

CJD

Professor Clutch, we are saying different things about different things.

You've answered it for me. You're talking about a Cone whose name is Certainty. At the wide end of this Cone named Certainty are such subjects as the mode of baptism, the Genesis debate, style of music in worship, the color of the carpets, etc. As the Cone named Certainty becomes more narrow, the beliefs become more integral to the system. In the middle somewhere might be the question about infant vs. believer's baptism. Or epistemological concerns (foundationalism vs. non-foundationalism). At its most narrow point, the Cone called Certainty might contain things like the Resurrection, the Trinity, anthropology (innocent or depraved?), the necessity of the sacraments, etc.

Pounding on the table and insisting that they are on the moon does not come from the fact that my Cone of Certainty differs from the New Hampshire sect. This is a given. Our Cones of Certainty differ. I am talking ecclesiology. Of course, you should refuse to recognize this (as the NH sect does). Why? Because if you did recognize the issue as a primarily ecclesial one, you would also see how the NH sect has over-extended itself.

In the history of biblical interpretation, some issues are discussed under the rubric "principle" and others are discussed under the rubric "custom." The reasons for my disapproval of the NH sect's demagoguery are as follows:

1. The history of the catholic Church interprets the injunctions against homosexuals serving as ordained ministers of Word and Sacrament as a Principle, not a cultural custom (like women wearing hats in the service).

2. The Anglican Church affirms this position, and re-affirmed it at its most recent Lambeth Conference.

3. The sectarian-minded, individualistic American church has ignored not only the historic Church, it has ignored its own communal majority.

You might respond that racism is a similar issue, that latent in the Christian Church was bigotry and it needed those who would go against the establishment for the cause of civil rights. I would say in response that this is horribly short-sighted, for this hasn't always been the case. Further, the whole letter of Romans has at its core multi-culturalism, that there is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female, etc (not in Romans, I know, but in Galatians, the mini-Romans). Finally, racism fell under the rubric of cultural custom, not Principle. Once again, the history of biblical interpretation denies the latter label to homosexuality.

I must bring up this point once again: The whole point of creeds and confessions of a church is that a member confesses that that particular creed or confession actually captures the biblical intent better than others. That's the whole point. You say you don't think so? Instead of saying, well, you can leave, I should have said that the individuals should have never been ordained to begin with. Why would they want to, when they know they do not accept, in the plain historical sense, the confessions of the church to which they are seeking ordination?

Do you want to how why such individuals make it through? Because they lied through ambiguity. They hid in the shadows (albeit created by their own church) and are now Coming Out. The main problem is not the consecration of Robinson. This is just a manifestation of the problem that has plagued this secta una for decades. In other words, their motivations are suspect (as I alluded to the in the previous post). This is why I say that Robinson now comes across as a glutton for power, instead of a mild-mannered, humble, "I'm just following the Gospel" minister of the Word.

Off with their heads!

abe smith

Well, CJD, it was Saul of Tarsus, the Founder of the Christian *sect* , who said "Slaves be obedient to your masters..." And I'll go finish reading your just-previous post to see whr/from what source you derive any Authority....

Treacle Worshipper

I have to admit to a certain amount of Schadenfreude over the situation in which the Anglican Communion finds itself, especially having watched Rowan Williams (supposedly "queer-friendly" Archbishop) singularly fail to defend the appointment of a celibate gay bishop earlier this year.

Well, the Anglican church was started 'cos of what Bluff King Hal wanted to do with his naughty bits & now it seems to be tearing itself apart over what the commoners want to do with their naughty bits. Poetic justice or irony or something. I just hope there are fewer people burned at the stake this time around.

Anyway, lots of those oh-so-opposed-to-gays African bishops allow polygamy; maybe the Episcopalians should break with them instead

TW