The Failure of the Anglican Experiment...?

Greetings again to all,

What I am about to write is going to seem traitorous and disloyal. It may infuriate some. In fact, I feel horrible for even thinking what I am thinking but that's the way it is.

Are we witnessing the failure of the Anglican Experiment?

What I mean by that is historic Anglicanism's committment to a non-papal, scriptural and conciliar Catholicism without a strong central authority. Are we discovering that this vision is untenable and unworkable in our time?

Before I go on, let me say that I am committed to the Anglican Way. I am committed to the Anglican liturgy and to the spirituality and pastoral vision of the English tradition. But can we really exist as a truly Catholic church with no centralized authority whatsover? I don't mean we all just need to become RCs and accept Papal authority as it stands now. But isn't there something in all of us that looks for authority...tangible, human authority?

Think about it. Everybody has a "pope." In other words, everyone has an authority that they look to for a final and authoritative word on matters of great importance. For many Anglo-Catholics, it is the Holy Father himself. For revisionists, it's Spong or Griswold. For many faithful Anglicans, it's Akinola. For '28 BCP folks it's Peter Toon. There seems to be a primal consciousness of the need for authority; central, final authority. Of course we believe Jesus Christ is the ultimate authority, and for Anglicans, that Scripture is the supreme authority in matters of faith and practice. But who mediates that authority to us? That is the question at hand.

The Windsor Report seems to want to give a greater role to the Archbishop of Canterbury. And while it is certainly a small step, it is indeed a step toward more centralized authority. Anglicanism for years has been trying to cope with the lack of central authority by coming up with various "instruments of unity." In the midst of all of this, we have qualified every statement that has come from these instruments as non-binding and advisory. But are we realizing now that our experiment of Catholicism without central authority has simply failed? I shudder to think.

The Windsor Report is a fine piece of theology, to be sure. It presents us with a vision of being in Communion by way of loving interdependence and autonomy-in-relationship. It holds us accountable to the bonds of love and affection which hold us together. But is it too generous to human nature to assume that we will not inevitably push through our own agendas, citing "autonomy" and "differing contexts" as a pretense for our lack of desire to submit ourselves to the good of the Communion? I think perhaps.

In the end, who will come down as the final word and "tell 'em no" when a body wants to push something through that is patently contrary to the Faith? All bishops in our Church are called to guard the faith and unity of the Church. But who decides what that faith is? Every bishop in the Church claims to be fulfilling ordination vows, but if that is the case, how come there are almost as many "faiths" as there are dioceses?

Perhaps the Anglican Experiment as we know it has simply failed. Where we go from here, I have no clue, only God does. I believe in the Lord's promise that the gates of Hell will not prevail over His Church. But I fear that "business as usual" is about to change dramatically.

I'd appreciate some more thoughts on this...


Pax Vobiscum,

RED+

The wind(sor report) blows where it will...

Greetings all,

It seems that the Windsor report is generating much response from all over the globe. Daily we hear reponses from Anglican leaders of every theological shade and hue. What I am amazed by is the fact that so many are patently unhappy with it. In a church where there is so much polarization on several key issues it seems that the extreme wings of each side of these issues don't really like the Windsor Report.

V. Gene Robinson considers it "unfair" and "deficient" in that there was no homosexual representative on the Commission and that he was not allowed to appear before the commission.

[This seems pretty brash to me. He is quoted as saying "There wouldn't even be a commission without my ordination." That reminds me of when I was kicked out of a band I had started as a teenager. I just moped about saying "without me they wouldn't have ever had a band!]

Forward in Faith doesn't like it because it seems to consider the issue of ordination of women as settled and the period of "reception" successfully ended.

The American Anglican Council and the Anglican Communion Network doesn't like it because it makes no acknowledgement of the Network's existence and deems the ECUSA House of Bishops' DEPO proposal to be adequate to address pastoral needs.

Archbishop Peter Akinola doesn't like because he thinks it patronizing and insulting to those who are trying to uphold biblical faith and "sentimental and warm" toward those who have pushed the innovations ahead.

David Kalveledge of The Living Church magazine said the Report lacked teeth. (My favorite section of his editorial was when he was lambasting the commission's recommendation to invite ECUSA to express regret: "Is an RSVP necessary?"

The point of all this is that I think many of us have looked for something that simply wasn't coming. A commission with a mandate to study communion, not sexuality, to make recommendations, not a judgement, to report to an Archbishop who has no real authority except in his own province...what were we expecting?

The truth is, I think, that many of us were desperately hoping for what could not be given by this particular report by this particular commission: A judgement on sexuality issues once and for all.

Where do we go from here? Well, I know people are tired of hearing it, but I will say it again: We wait and we pray. And we pray some more. For me personally, it has been easy to get sucked into the vortex of commenting and pontificating on the Report, praising the parts that make me happy and lamenting the parts that don't. What I haven't really done is gotten on my knees before the Blessed Sacrament and plead for God's will to be done in His Church.

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting that everything will just magically get better if we all say our Aves and jiggle our rosary beads enough. Our communion is in trouble, serious trouble. But what I am suggesting is that the best thing any of us can do, the best all of us can do, is constantly lift up our Communion to the only one who in the final analysis can effect any lasting change...namely God. And repent for any actions of our own which hurt the Body. I realize after studying (and preaching on) this past Sunday's gospel, that I am a little like that Pharisee:

"I thank Thee, O God, that I am not like other men; liberals, revisionists, muddy moderates, or even like this homosexual Bishop. I say my Office, go to Mass every day, abstain from meat on Fridays, and read Touchstone magazine."

Shame on me if I ever give up one inch of the ground of the Catholic Faith for revisionist drivel. But shame on me even more if I forget that it is ONLY by God's mercy and grace that a miserable sinner like me finds himself within the embrace of the Faith of our fathers.

Can't we all just get along? No, of course not. It's just the way this sinful world works. But can't we all realize that the ground at Calvary is level and we all stand in the same need of the same grace? Yes we can, and we must if we are ever to get anywhere remotely similar to a solution to this mess.

Perhaps some juevos on the part of leadership would help too;-)

The Windsor Report is unfortunately not the savior we all hoped it would be. It says some good things. It says some bad things. Like any other good Anglican document of recent history it all depends on interpretation (if you know me, you'll know how much I HATE to admit that...). That's what we wait on for the time being. Several more groups have yet to process that report before anything is even done about it.

So Oremus.


Peace to you all,

RED+

Legislating Mortality...I mean, Morality

Been thinking a bit lately about the debates in this election year involving issues of morality: gay marriage, abortion, euthanasia, etc.

It's really getting quite tiresome for me to hear candidates (admittedly, mostly Democrats and for that matter, mostly John Kerry) go on and on self-righteously saying that although "personally opposed" to things like abortion, gay marriage, and the like, they cannot "legislate morality" to the American people. This sounds very high-minded and takes several forms. One form I am particularly "fond" of is what I have Kerry and other pro-choice "Catholics" say regarding abortion:

[imagine sincere and earnest facial expression combined with a very convicted voice:]

"I respect those who hold the view you hold (pro-life). I myself am a Catholic. I was raised Catholic. I was even an altar boy [do they want a certificate for this or something?] But I cannot force onto other American people what for me is an article of faith."

Again, this sounds really sincere and high-minded, but the problem I have is with the use of the term, "article of faith."

The sanctity of life is not something that is an article of faith in the strictest sense of that term. In other words, the Church teaches the sanctity of life not because it thought it might be a good idea to promulgate it, but because it recognizes that inherent in the order of creation itself life is good and is to protected and preserved. Therefore, not being Catholic does not give one the option to not believe in the sanctity of life. All mankind should believe in the sanctity of life. To say otherwise is to give in to that postmodern heresy that it is the community that comes up with its own rules, rather than God revealing Himself to a community. So, if you are not in the Catholic community, the sanctity of life cannot be forced upon you, because perhaps you haven't experienced life that way. Really?

What if my experience of life tells me that it's okay to kill people I don't like? Or not pay my taxes to the government? Or steal things that I do not own? Or marry 20 women? Or even 10 men and 10 women?

Clearly, the government does legislate morality. The good of a society is dependant upon the moral behavior of its citizens and upon the government's ability to restrain evil. Morality as it is legistated by the government is meant to protect the good of the society as a whole. At least, it used to be.

Now it seems that legislation is more about individual rights than about the good of the society. The sanctity of life as a bedrock prinicple of a stable society is no longer as important as an individual woman's right to choose. The sanctity of marriage and family as a necessity for a stable society is no longer as important as the rights of two individual men or two individual women to have the "rights (or rites)" of "marriage."

The legitimate legislation of morality is giving way to legislation of mortality, leading more and more into a culture of death.

But, hey, at least no one is imposing his traditional views on anyone else, right? It's just the non-traditional views being imposed.


RED+

P.S.- For a devastating critique of the current rhetoric of "not imposing my views," see this article by David Mills of Touchstone Magazine.

Hilarious!

Just read this posting at Ship of Fools website, summarizing the Windsor Report:

"You've all been very naughty children. Now stop it at once!"

Only in Anglicanism can we take 93 pages to say that.

RED+

"Via Media" and the "Three-Legged Stool" sample

Greetings, again, to all:

With all that is going on these days in the Anglican Communion, there is much talk about "via media" and the need to avoid extremes. Many times this kind of talk comes from "moderates" who don't think we should go quite so full steam ahead with our lovely innovations but who also think we shouldn't get our shorts in wad about those who doing precisely that. To their credit, many of these folks truly want to see the Church "forbearing one another in love" as St. Paul exhorts the Ephesian church. But more often, I think, it is a conveniently "historical" veneer for a lack of committment to truth one way or the other. Or, perhaps, there is committment to the truth, but the truth is such that it is too-great-for-us-to-apprehend. This is wonderfully humble and all, but Jesus said that he IS the truth, and that truth will set us free. So if the truth cannot be apprehended, then we will never be free and all this preaching and teaching the Church is supposed to be doing is at best a hit-and-miss attempt and at worst a prodigal waste of time.
So then, back to "via media." Orginally it referred to the character of the Elizabethan settlement in the late English Reformation, in which Ecclesia Anglicana eschewed the two polar opposites of Puritan protestantism or Roman Catholic recusancy (this is my understanding, I stand quite willing to be corrected...) The Caroline Divines would later elaborate the idea that the C of E could be a biblical church without being Puritan and could be a catholic Church without the Papacy.
Unfortunately, this understanding of "via media" is being pulled out of historical context. It is now being put to service by those who think that Anglicans need to find a middle ground between those who have the "anything goes" mindset and those who say any innovation is right out. So, in other words, "via media" is supposed to mean that there is a way to steer between these two extremes of committment to cutting-edge innovation and the preservation of Holy Tradition.
The only problem with this is summed up in a comment I heard a friend say years ago: If you walk in the middle of the road you're going to get hit by traffic from both directions. Perhaps the most unpopular people in the Church are not the crazy revisionists or the wagon-circling orthodox, but the muddy-middle, those who aren't really committed either way. And this is supposed to be Anglican.
There is a kernal of truth, here. Anglicans, by virtue of their lack of central magisterial authority, have always been free to explore the truth wherever it may be found. This was not a search without boundaries, but it was free enquiry nonetheless. Perhaps the golden example of this is the Liberal Catholic movement in the C of E, with such luminaries (although some will disagree with me on this) as Charles Gore, Henry Scott-Holland, and more recent figures such as A.M. Ramsey. Their liberalism allowed them to reach out into the world of ideas and seek for truth in all spheres. But their Catholicism never allowed to go beyond the bounds of what the Church taught in her most basic expressions (i.e. the Creeds). Our classic "control" has been that ubiquitous "three-legged stool" of Scripture, Tradition, and Reason.
But even this has been taken out of its historical context and original meaning and drafted into the service of those who would rescue the Church from "fundamentalism (i.e., committment to historical Christian orthodoxy)." The three-legged stool is hardly an adequate image to explain what Hooker meant in his Laws. The three-legged stool gives us three interdependent sources of truth. Take one leg away, and the whole stool falls. Mostly this means that take reason (new "understandings" of certain issues...mostly moral ones) away from Scripture and Tradition, and you have an unreliable understanding of the truth of a matter. But this is NOT Hooker's vision of the interplay between these three sources.
For Hooker, and for historical Anglicanism, Scripture has been the ultimate authority in matters of faith and practice. Indeed, for Hooker, Scripture is the foundation upon which the "beautiful pillar" of tradition and reason (i.e. the Church's faith) is built. Make no mistake, Hooker believed that what "scripture doth plainly deliver" was to be given first priority of belief.
That's not to say that we view biblical authority the same as a Baptist, for instance. There is indeed an interplay and interdependence between Scripture, Tradition, and Reason. Tradition is that venerable history of interpreation in which the Church has used her sanctified reason to discern the meaning of the Holy Scriptures. But the mutual relationship between Scripture, Tradition, and Reason is not one of impotent "leaning" one upon the other. Rather, is could be looked from the perspective of the doctrine of the Trinity. Here we have God, one Being in three co-eternal, and substantially equal persons existing perichoretically in mutual love and interdependence. But clearly the Father has headship and superiority. The Son and Holy Spirit do the bidding of the Father. In the same way, Scripture holds the supremacy in the "three-legged stool," but with tradition and reason exists as a marvelous unity of truth.

I realize that I have used an entire lunch break to write this, and should probably get back to work. I apologize for the length of my ramblings, but this whole misuse of "via media" and the "three legged stool" has really been a bee in my bonnet for quite some time. I invite any discussion on these things, as they are part of what makes us unique among Catholic Christendom.

RED+

Oh, and...

Just FYI, my profile on this blog used my birthdate to calculate and display my astrological sign and the fact that I was born in the year of the Snake. I can't figure out how to get those off the profile so I guess I'll just leave them. To those who might be possibly disturbed that a Christian priest would care what his astrological signs are, be assured I have nothing to do with astrology and think it to be rubbish. To those who might be excited by the idea of a priest into astrology, let me say...I have nothing to do with astrology and think it to be rubbish.

The Unpalatable Remedies of God

In an age where "relevance" is a hot concept in the practice of ministry, and the Church is often scrambling to find "new and innovative" ways to "make the gospel relevant" in people's lives, I found this passage from Canon W.C.E. Newbolt's addresses to ordination candidates refreshing. It is worth quoting at length.

"Yet, again, the minister of God comes from a world of sanctifying love. It is all-important to remember this. We are not making experiments; we are not dealing with unknown cases; we are not patching up wounds which we do not understand, with a treatment which we do not appreciate. He Who knew what was in man left us, for our help and cure, the Catholic Church--old remedies, slow and painful, but effectual [emphasis mine]. Would that we were more faithful in the use of them! Original sin, with its taint and malignity, does need Holy Baptism. Actual sin is forgiven and its chain snapped off by Absolution. The weakness of our nature, too feeble to stand alone, is braced and supported by Confirmation. There is growth and sustaining power in Holy Communion. Do we, as ministers of God, know how to use these things? Have we tried their edge? There is no liberality in substituting untried remedies of human invention which happen to be in the fashion, for the tried remedies of God which happen to be unpalatable. We must not be ashamed to tell Naaman to go and wash seven times in the river Jordan, if he will be cleansed from his leprosy; nor desist for his rage, nor give in because he threatens to go elsewhere. [This is the good part....]We must not be ashamed to proclaim that we hope to subdue the vice and overthrow the ramparts of sin in our towns, simply by walking around it with the sevenfold procession of grace. [Wow!] No, there is no liberality in distracting a poor sufferer by ill-considered advice, or evenly balanced advocacy of opposing remedies. We shall not cure a man who lies desperately ill by telling him that allopathists, homeopathists, herbalists, faith-healers, and all quacks, are either equally good or equally useless; but we shall feel it necessary to diagnose his case, and act carefully and with the utmost accuracy of treatment. Much more, when we are dealing with a man's soul we feel it must not be trifled with or treated inconsiderately. If we come from the God of sanctifying love, we feel that we come from a God Who has given His Son to die for us, and to rise again for our justification.

-W.C.E. Newbolt, in The Heart of a Priest, ed. by J.H.L. Morrell



RED+

Introductions and such...

Greetings to everyone! My name is Ronald E Drummond Jr. and I am a priest of the Anglican Communion in the Diocese of Quincy in Illinois. I currently serve as Missioner for youth and college ministries in the Diocese and live in Peoria, IL. I read blogs often but have never had one for myself and I figured I ought to get a piece of this “blogging” action. Not that I think my mental wanderings are worth anyone’s precious time, but then again, who’s are (as time is precious to us all)? And yet blogging seems to be a great forum for the exchange of ideas and expression of opinions and I hope to use this outlet for my defense of the great truths that have carried God’s One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church through hell and high water (without help from the Zeitgeist, thank you very much). Not only for these, but for the bedrock principles of morality which have sustained western society throughout its existence; namely, the sanctity of life and of marriage and family. As a priest it is my bounden duty to proclaim the gospel Jesus Christ and him crucified as the only name given by which we must be saved. There is no gospel but this... that which the Scriptures bear witness to and which the Church has proclaimed for 2000 years. It is water for the thirsty soul. Anything else, no matter how sincere or well-intentioned, is at best kool-aid for the soul and at worst poison for it. I often grumble to myself about the nonsense that often get passed off as Christianity these days and I have decided that the time for grumbling is past and that I should, if for nobody’s sake but mine, put my thoughts down in writing. So may I offer this as my initial step into the foyer of the blogging community. God bless all, and thanks be to God that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners...of whom I am the chief!

Fr. Ron+