[See my response to Fr. Edwards. E. Fox]
Serious Questions For The Dallas Meeting
From Fr. Samuel L. Edwards
The Christian Challenge (Washington, DC)
September 29, 2003
Dear ___________,
In the aftermath of the last (perhaps in more than one sense) General
Convention of The Episcopal Church, I understand that soon you will be
joining in Dallas with a couple of thousand others to contemplate what Fr
Geoffrey Kirk once called “the great existential question: ‘What do we do
now?’”
What you feared and what many of us long warned of has happened: The
religious institution called The Episcopal Church no longer only risks
becoming, but actually and clearly has become “the unChurch.” It is now what
a colleague several years ago called the Elegant Cult of Universal Sexual
Affirmation (ECUSA). That characterization was funny then. Now, sadly, it is
all too true.
I am very concerned for you and for all my co-religionists who – at least for
the time being – remain within ECUSA. Because of this, I think I must ask
questions and raise issues that only a few others seem to have asked or
raised and that fewer still within the conservative/orthodox alliance have
answered or addressed. I don’t wish to rain on the parade to Dallas, but for
the sake of clarity of thought and effectiveness of mission, it seems to me
that if these questions and issues are not addressed, the October gathering
will prove to be no different than any of the multitude of ecclesiastical pep
rallies that for the last decade and more have characterized the corporate
life of the dwindling remnant within ECUSA.
You will have noted that I refer to “the conservative/orthodox alliance.” I
want to be clear why it is that I use that phrase. It is not because I think
the two terms – “conservative” and “orthodox” – are interchangeable.
Far from it: Despite their current commonality of interests, and the habit of
the members of both groups of referring to themselves as “orthodox,” they are
two distinct positions, even if there is a considerable amount of overlap in
the individuals and groups that are part of the alliance. Their desired ends
may look the same, but they are rooted in distinct soils – one of history,
the other of eternity.
It would be true – though probably not comprehensive – to say that the
conservatives conceive Anglican renewal more in terms of a return to a
previous status quo, while the orthodox see that renewal as a transformation
of the defects of the previous system in light of the eternal and universal
gospel. In other words, the former are more interested in a return, while the
latter seek forget the things which are behind and reach forward to those
things which are before (cf. Phil. 3:13). One might say and not go far wrong
that conservatives are interested in re-establishing the traditions (small
“t” plural) of Anglicanism, while the orthodox seek to establish themselves
in the Tradition (large “T” singular) of the Church Universal, of which the
Anglican Way (and my avoidance of the term “Anglicanism” here is deliberate)
is a particular manifestation.
>From where I sit, it appears that the conservatives in ECUSA have finally
reached their deviance toleration limit. For many, even most, it would be
sufficient to return to a point sometime prior to the Robinson affair or
before the resolution from the 2000 General Convention which “recognized” –
without evaluating, and therefore practically endorsing – a variety of sexual
lifestyles among the members of The Episcopal Church. A smaller number would
prefer to return to a time before 1979 (the Prayer Book revisioning – note,
NOT “revision”) or 1976 (the authorization of female priests and bishops) or
1973 (the relaxation of the marriage canons) or 1970 (the equation of
deacons and deaconesses). It is this, I think, that is a major reason for
their desire to stay connected to the Canterbury Communion. What they do not
and dare not recognize is that, even if any of this could be accomplished
(and, frankly, none of it can be) and whatever status quo ante they prefer
could be restored (and it can’t), the fundamental disease of which all of
these manifestations are symptoms – the replacement of genuinely scriptural
doctrinal standards with varying degrees of subjectivism, scientism,
sentimentality, and experientialism – would still be in the Episcopal body
politic.
(It occurs to me that, in a bizarre sort of way, the conservatives are more
“traditionalist” than the orthodox. Having said that, I hasten to remind you
of the low opinion I have of anything to which an “ism” is attached – however
you slice it, an ism always ends up destroying that to which it is attached,
for it puts that thing at the center of reality – and ours is a jealous God.)
The orthodox within ECUSA, in contrast to their conservative allies, reached
their deviance toleration limit long ago. Many have left, but many others –
me until recently and you to this day – have been hanging in since then in
hopes that steady witness to the things that are not shaken might at least
secure them a protected enclave from which they could undertake the
transformation of ECUSA – a possibility which, in retrospect, was never real.
They are more apt to recognize the disease of which I wrote above, but with
few exceptions they are not as insistent as they should be about announcing
the diagnosis to their conservative cobelligerents: It does tend to irritate
them because it carries with it the discomfiting knowledge that they need to
revisit some of the deviations (e.g., marital discipline, women’s ordination,
prayer book revisionism) which they find tolerable, or even good.
Sooner or later, after the Dallas meeting or during it, this distinction
between conservatives and orthodox will prove critical. You should keep it in
mind as you wrestle – if you choose to do so – with the questions and issues
I’ve been preparing to name since the beginning of this letter. And now, here
they are:
First, what is the objective of the Dallas meeting? Does it have more to do
with the preservation of Anglicanism or with fidelity to the Gospel? The two
are not necessarily the same, you know. Anglicanism (in contrast to the
Anglican Way of being an evangelical and catholic Christian) is really not
the answer, but a large part of the problem. Anglicanism (a noun which did
not exist in the English language before 1846, if The Oxford English
Dictionary is to be believed) is a fundamentally denominational or sectarian
(and therefore uncatholic and unevangelical) posture and mindset, excessively
focused on the question of its identity. Any attempt to rescue Anglicanism is
bound only to lead to new denominations or sects in which the practical
subordination of the Gospel to ecclesiastical institutionalism – one of the
great faults of ECUSA – will remain unhealed. It is only when fidelity to the
Gospel is the main focus that Anglicans will remember who they are. This is
completely in line with the seeming paradox at the core of the Gospel: He who
seeks his identity will lose it, but he who loses his identity for the sake
of Jesus Christ and his Gospel will find it.
One gets the impression that for many of the pilgrims to the Wyndham Anatole,
the most important task for the Dallas meeting is to find a way to preserve
their connection with the Canterbury Communion (which is seen as a sine qua
non of Anglican identity) while distancing or even separating themselves from
ECUSA. For years – long before my recent departure from ECUSA – I have found
this focus on Canterbury as the fons et origo of Anglican identity to be
anachronistic and – not to put too fine a point upon it – a mere
Anglicanization of Roman ultramontanism (which makes communion with the Roman
see an essential element of catholic identity).
I do not think the English reformers meant to exchange a system in which
catholic authenticity was defined in terms of connection to a single see for
one in which it was defined in terms of connection to a different single see.
If the principle is fundamentally wrong in Latin, it is not made right by
being translated into English.
As long as I’m being blunt, in fairness it needs to be pointed out that the
Roman system makes communion with the See of Peter only one of several
elements essential to authentic catholicity, while increasingly the Anglicans
– or to be more accurate, the “anglicanists” – look upon communion with the
See of Augustine as the only thing essential to Anglican identity.
Seemingly, a body of believers can hold all the historic elements of the
Anglican Way, but if that one particular thing is missing, it isn’t really an
Anglican Church. Thus, we end up with a situation in which Anglican
jurisdictions such as my own and others are considered counterfeits, while
jurisdictions like ECUSA, the Anglican Church in Canada, the Anglican Church
in New Zealand, which spit on Scripture and tolerate or even promote
doctrinal and practical perversity, are considered authentic because they’re
still in formal communion with Canterbury. (And, while we’re at it, let’s not
forget that Canterbury’s Archbishop presides over a Church which permits
atheists, transgendered priestesses and suchlike to minister to its people.)
Well, an over-valuation of mere pedigree always was an unfortunate
characteristic of the state church in England.
Second, how does the current determination to remain within the Canterbury
Communion differ in principle from the previous (and, for some, current)
determination not to leave ECUSA? I don’t see that it does, and, consistent
with the principles outlined above, it seems to me that it provides a
distraction from what ought to be the more central focus of the meeting,
which would include consideration of how to address the formation and/ or
reformation in Anglican institutions – including those represented by the
participants in the meeting – of those elements, attitudes, systems, and
perspectives which have contributed to the necrosis of ECUSA.
Third, what, if anything, is going to be done to address the obvious
variances within the conservative/orthodox coalition in ECUSA over what
degree of deviance from apostolic faith and order is acceptable? Is the
coalition going to seek a lowest common denominator, or is it going to seek
the truth?
Fourth, assuming that the Dallas meeting produces something more than (1)
counsel to wait for the hoped-for lead presumably to be given at or in the
wake of the upcoming emergency Primates’ Meeting and (2) an agreement to have
another meeting, how is the conservative/orthodox coalition going to
establish a system of accountability that will significantly reduce the
chances of a similar doctrinal crisis afflicting the orthodox body in future?
Fifth, what are you all going to do if no effective intervention is
forthcoming? Notice, I say “effective intervention”: It is conceivable that
there could be a kind of on-paper intervention which – in spite of the good
intentions of the orthodox Primates – would be ineffective due to the fact
that there is at present no way of enforcing any disciplinary decision
against ECUSA. The Primates might suspend ECUSA, but they could not suspend
its leadership in any way that would give more than moral relief to the
traditionalist constituency, and only that would effectively put an end to
the revisionist revolution.
It is entirely possible, perhaps even likely, that the Primates will
intervene in the way the organizers of the Dallas event desire, but the fact
remains that their writ will run only in those dioceses which agree with them
– and where it is not necessary – and have no effect in those places where in
fact it is most needed. (It could be like the Emancipation Proclamation,
which in spite of its high rhetoric freed not a single slave, since it
applied only to those territories not under Federal control.) In other
words, it would be good news for conservative and orthodox Episcopalians in
Fort Worth, South Carolina, Dallas, Quincy, Pittsburgh and so forth, who are
already protected, but would give nothing but moral comfort to those in
Washington, New York, Newark, Pennsylvania, California, and so on without
giving them any real cover. If (like the Emancipation Proclamation) such an
intervention were to have as its concealed agenda the sparking of a revolt by
the conservative and orthodox against their revisionist oppressors, that
would be understandable, but given their track record of the last thirty and
more years, it seems less than certain that this proclamation would be any
more effective than that of 140 years ago.
Sixth, is any consideration going to be given to determining what will be the
“conditions for victory”? That is, what are the conditions whose fulfillment
will enable the conservative and orthodox advocacy groups to close down their
operations, having fulfilled their purposes? Is there even any awareness
that such groups need to plan for their own demise after having achieved
their goals? This is important, since those that do not or will not end up
manufacturing crises to keep themselves alive. (The NAACP and the NARAL are a
good secular examples of this phenomenon, as was the Soviet Communist Party.)
Finally, and not least in importance, is there going to be any serious
consideration given at this meeting to the place of non-Canterbury Communion
Anglicans in this reformation? Or, rather I should ask, is the Dallas
assembly going to give consideration as to how it fits in with the ongoing
recovery of the Anglican Way? That recovery and reformation has been going on
for some time already amongst us “other Anglicans”: For a quarter-century we
have been endeavoring to bear witness to the faith and to remain loyal to the
order which ECUSA has now and indisputably consigned to the ash-heap of
history. We have borne the obloquy of ECUSA’s revisionists, of its
corporatists, and not infrequently of some of its conservative and orthodox
members. We have had serious problems of our own, to be sure, but in the face
of all that, we have been planting churches, converting the unchurched, and
raising up our children in the knowledge and fear of the Lord. We are now
seeing the rise of a new generation for whom the abuses of ECUSA are largely
things of which their parents and grandparents speak and which make it into
the newspaper headlines occasionally, but whose grounding is in the classical
Anglican Way and whose focus is on offering its message of stable hope and
faithfulness to a world adrift on a swirling sea of relativism and despair.
We’ve been doing what you also seek to do, and we will continue to do so
whether or not the Dallas gathering takes any note of our existence. Yet I do
think that, if the questions I’ve raised here are taken seriously, we can
work effectively, not just for the recovery, but for the extension of the
Gospel treasure through the Anglican Way.
This comes to you with my blessing and best wishes and with prayers for an
outcome of your meeting which will give glory to God and benefit to all his
holy Church. I remain
Faithfully yours in Christ Jesus,
The Rev’d Fr Samuel L. Edwards
Anglican Church of Saint Mary the Virgin (APCK)
Fort Washington, Maryland
25 September 2003
[See my response to Fr. Edwards. E. Fox]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Go to: => TOP Page; => Episcopal Library; => Anglican Library; => ROAD MAP