A.N. Wilson: Goodbye, Church of England
Saturday October 24, 2009
Strong words from A.N. Wilson, the prominent Anglican revert, about Pope Benedict's overture to disaffected Anglican conservatives. Excerpts: The numbers of practicing Catholics in England is greater than the number of practicing Anglicans. Within a generation, there will probably be...
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Recent Posts
About Crunchy Con
Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.
Subscribe
Archives
Blogs Worth Reading
- Front Porch Republic
- The American Conservative
- Patrick Deneen
- Conventional Folly
- The American Scene
- First Things
- Andrew Sullivan
- The Plank
- Eunomia
- Get Religion
- Postmodern Conservative
- Alex Massie
- The Corner
- Contentions
- Sharon Astyk
- Barry Ritholtz
- The Oil Drum
- Mere Comments
- First Principles (ISI)
- Brian Kaller
"Benedict is doing what he can" I think the RCs are destroying themselves in the same way that the Anglican are, but in mirror image. In our (Anglican) case it is a dictatorship from the left, ignoring that they are several steps to the left of the laity. In the RC case it is an even more corrupt dictatorship from the right, ignoring that the laity are several steps to the left. The RCs are bigger, and so will survive longer - per the decline and fall of the Roman Empire - RCs have a lot of decline and fall, but no less inexorable than the Anglicans.
And you did see Dowd's Op Ed on the same page, and the current Pope's statements as to the natural subordination of women, nuns in this case.
The laity *who go to Mass* aren't generally to the left of Benedict, that's for sure. Maybe you're thinking of the likes of Patrick Kennedy, however. The idea that people would flock to the Church (any church) if the Church just moved left on certain issues has not been born out empirically. The American Church in particular tried that since the late 60s, with disastrous numerical results.
Keep in mind the RC Church has survived the collapse of empires, the Islamic conquests, the Reformation, the rise of Modernity, the French Revolution, two world wars, Nazism, Communism, etc...and there's 1 billion+ (granted, many nominal) Catholics on the planet after all of that. So if we're ever bigger after all of that, why should we fall inexorably? It's bleak in the West, perhaps, and will continue to be, but in Asia and Africa Catholicism is growing and thriving.
I guess if anything, the only thing that can stop the Church is the Church itself, when it shoots itself in the foot. Benedict is trying to reverse the last forty years of the Catholic Church's silly season and heal her self-inflicted wounds, getting Catholicism back to its authentic self. Seminaries are filling again. The Church in America is growing in the South in particular. It's turning slowly around.
And most sociologists of religion would tell us that conservative churches generally grow, while liberal churches (liberal defined as those which accommodate to culture) have declined severely in the last several decades. Why? Pretty simple: if your church proclaims the same things the culture at large proclaims, it makes itself redundant, superfluous. If your Church proclaims something distinctive -- say, the love of God revealed in the person of Jesus Christ, through faith in whom one may have great hope -- then you get a hearing. It stands out. An imperfect analogy: if I'm going to introduce a cola into the market, it better not look and taste and cost just like Coke, or people will keep buying Coke.
I just went and read the entire piece. Having read Wilson's books before, such as his book on Paul, I've had my suspicions about his interpretive abilities. I now have suspicions about his predictive abilities, for he writes:
"In time to come, I confidently predict, there will be others smiling ruefully, too — such as the 'liberal' Anglicans left behind, who will watch a pope (I guess 20 years from now) ordaining women to the Catholic priesthood."
Right...whatever one's opinion on the issue, that's simply not going to happen.
I think I may have known, and at times even admired, people who would fit in well in A.N. Wilson's "set" over there in England.
Fortunately or unfortunately, I see sense in Rod's remark that
'It's a bit unclear exactly where Wilson stands on this.'
That's the genius of it all, don't you see? Some of the intelligentsia are so sophisticated that they find it impossible to be anything but themselves.
When the first woman Pope sits down in the Chair of Peter, I will admit they've proved me wrong.
Oh, and RobL, I just read that op-ed piece you referenced, and it was like an instant-replay of the 1980s.
In my Church, we have nuns--not Sisters of this or Sisters of that, just nuns. They all follow the same Rule, they all pray, they all work. They are very busy people, fulfilling the vocation designed by Our Lord for his "women disciples, who ran with spices to His empty tomb, and who were chosen to announce His resurrection to the disciples.
And who didn't need to learn to restructure the governments of third-world countries. Subservient is not a word in an Orthodox nun's vocabulary, except insofar as she serves as a handmaid of the Lord.
Mary
Heaven and earth will pass away.......but the Church......you might as well look for the freezing of the sun. After all this destructualization, post modernidity, changing, evolutionary slide, technological shift, new world order.....the Church will stand again in Her orthodoxy. Why, because the paradox of Her orthodoxy is the key to freedom. It is a doorway, a path (words can't explain) that once you cross you know in your heart you are with truth. I will try to explain with one more metaphor. Courage was a peculiar paradox that I passed through when drafted into a wartime experience. To be couragious was to hold two contradictory feelings at the same time. You had to be both scared to death and sort of care free(you know, stupid like an 18 year old). The paradox of it all froze some fellows and others went wild into addictions. Only some found the balance. To me Christianity is the template to paradox.
In England 30 years from now will any of it make whit of difference. The path to destruction is set, unchecked immigration from black and Muslim countries has been unleashed on a beautiful peaceful countryside. The Church of England will cease to exist. As a matter of fact, ALL churches will cease to exist. Islam will finally secure the victory it has long sought. All this is happening right before our eyes and we do not believe. The Sun will set on an Empire while the Queen snoozes, the Queen Victoria Gates will be torn down and recast into weapons to finalize the transformation.
And all the time this is happening we will all be witnessing our future and beating our chests and proclaiming "Can't we all just get along together". We have been nannyized!
iw: The path to destruction is set, unchecked immigration from black and Muslim countries has been unleashed on a beautiful peaceful countryside.
I dunno, iw, this comely British lass doesn't look to be either African or Islamic. We have met the barbarians, and in many cases, they is us. The collapse of Christianity in Britain is not the fault of immigrants.
I think the RCs are destroying themselves ...
Oh, please. The Church is growing all over the world. See me in another 2,000 years, long after Western civilization has aborted and same-sexed itself to a whimpering, ignominious death. The Catholic Church will still be strong, still global, still growing.
You are right about Benedict, Rod. He's trying to salvage and harden whatever vestiges of genuine Christianity can still be found there. Not because the future of the Church is in the West - it clearly isn't - but because he's a shepherd, gathering the few remaining Western sheep.
I agree with tscott... The C of E often complains it is losing younger members because they prefer a more "modern" church - but this is just a fashion, a passing phase!! Maturity and the wisdome which experience brings draws every man, woman and child back to Christ on their knees, as they learn that only His love is good enough to save. Young people learn that they really DO need rituals and structure after all, in their personal lives, and that the church is trying to provide them with that basis. So yes, the church will forever stand, in the eternal Truth of God.
Re: And most sociologists of religion would tell us that conservative churches generally grow, while liberal churches (liberal defined as those which accommodate to culture) have declined severely in the last several decades
Why assume that the leaders of 'liberal churches' (I presume you mean like the Anglicans) have accomodated themselves to culture, rather then followed their own consciences and their understanding of the Gospel?
I've no doubt that there are _some_ who do try to accomodate to the culture of our time in the most slavish and craven way, but that's certainly not the case for everyone. I know several clergymen who are fine with homosexuality but not with abortion, for example, so there's clearly something more here, and more interesting, then simply accomodating to culture.
Re: And who didn't need to learn to restructure the governments of third-world countries.
Um, the governments of very many third world countries are nothing but corrupt and brutal oligarchies, which do need to be restructured. Badly.
It's certainly a sad thing that the Church of England is declining, and even a sadder thing that some Anglican clergymen feel free to deny essential articles of the faith like the virgin birth, the miracles of Jesus and so forth. However there are a lot of Anglo-Catholic clergymen who hold a firm and reasonably orthodox faith in the basic tenets of Christianity, for all that they may have more liberal views on gender and sexuality than the Catholics or Orthodox. It's always tricky to project demographic trends into the far future- a little consideration of population biology in either humans or animals will show you that population trends _never_ stay constant, and are _always_ in flux. And there are some Anglican provinces that are both fairly liberal and also growing, the Anglican Church of Ireland for example.
I'll stay an Anglo-Catholic as long as I can experience Christ there, and I believe it will still be possible for others to do so 500 years from now, though I freely admit that's based as much on faith and hope as on anything else.
In a globalising Earth, isn't it cute to see leftists, of all people, equating the West with the World?
Love that Eurocentrism, RobL.
"I dunno, iw, this comely British lass doesn't look to be either African or Islamic. We have met the barbarians, and in many cases, they is us. The collapse of Christianity in Britain is not the fault of immigrants."
Rod:
I think I was trying to say it's because of the immigrants overwhelming the Country and because they are Muslim. Crusades is on!!!!
Actually, that's a good example. Currently the Anglican church is growing in the Republic of Ireland, and the Catholic church is declining. Can we conclude that 500 years from now Ireland will be an Anglican nation? Of course not, but that merely points to the fact that extrapolating demographic trends (especially those having to do with _belief_) into the far future is a tricky business.
Irenaeus, the Aris 2009 survey showed the Catholic Church declining overall while growing in only a few Southern states. With the changes largely due to population movements rather than conversions. So I don't think Benedict or his policies could be responsible for population movements.
I think England would be better off if it had separation of church and state like the US does. It would nip the Sharia issue in the bud as that would violate separation. Ironically the C of E would likely be better off too, as the US experience shows, separation benefits churches as well.
Also, I'll throw in my opinion that England's declining religiosity didn't lead to multi-culturalism. Instead multi-culturalism caused by immigration leads to declining religiosity as people of different faiths tends to view each other as equals. This experience waters down their view in the exclusivity of their own religion.
Also, completely unrelated by a recent Nova Vodcast profiled the guy who invented CAPTCHA and RECAPTCHA. It's interesting viewing considereing how often CAPTCHA eats posts around here. I've learned to save mine in the cut buffer before submit just in case.
Re: Ironically the C of E would likely be better off too, as the US experience shows, separation benefits churches as well.
I don't think this is necessarily true as a general rule. Plenty of Latin American nations don't have strict separation of church and state in a strict U.S. sense, but they continue to be highly religious. Same goes for some Eastern Christian states like Armenia and Georgia.
"Why assume that the leaders of 'liberal churches' (I presume you mean like the Anglicans) have accomodated themselves to culture, rather then followed their own consciences and their understanding of the Gospel?"
Because "following their own consciences" (as defined by liberal churchmen) and "their own understanding of the Gospel" is the sine qua non of accomodation to modern culture. It is the cornerstone of the Anglican's destruction.
If one could make the case that organized Christianity led to an increase in the teachings of Jesus (say the Sermon on the Mount, or by the Seaside), then one could look at the collapse of Christianity throughout the world as tragedy/disaster. The case can be made only regarding a few of the moral standards we find in scripture. As a whole. ..... RC triumphalism continues unabated despite facts and reality.
ps - I think the world is better for the message of Jesus from the imperfect witness of bits and pieces of all of the major Christian sects. Yet the case that the hierarchy of any of them really represents the teachings of Jesus is not generally believed by anyone outside their own sect. i.e., my denomination is OK, but yours is inauthentic.
trouble posting, edits got lost, I will try again:
If one could make the case that organized Christianity led to an increase in the observance of the teachings of Jesus (say the Sermon on the Mount, or by the Seaside), then one could look at the collapse of Christianity throughout the world as tragedy/disaster. The case can be made only regarding a few of the moral standards we find in scripture. As a whole. .....
RC triumphalism continues unabated despite facts and reality. Anglicans and RCs do well in Africa, but even there shadows loom. Individual Christians and their congregations do inspire, but that inspiration seems pretty divorced from the hierarchy and organization.
ps - I think the world is better for the message of Jesus from the imperfect witness of bits and pieces of all of the major Christian sects. Yet the case that the hierarchy of any of them really represents the teachings of Jesus is not generally believed by anyone outside their own sect. i.e., my denomination is OK, but yours is inauthentic.
"Irenaeus, the Aris 2009 survey showed the Catholic Church declining overall while growing in only a few Southern states."
Yes, if it is declining in the US, it must be declining overall. After, the good old US of A is really all that matters. If it dont fly here, it wont fly, period. Because, after all, Catholicism doesnt have the proven staying power of, say, Enlightenment political theory.
"Yet the case that the hierarchy of any of them really represents the teachings of Jesus is not generally believed by anyone outside their own sect."
That's true of Germ Theory as well.
"Anglicans and RCs do well in Africa, but even there shadows loom. Individual Christians and their congregations do inspire, but that inspiration seems pretty divorced from the hierarchy and organization."
RobL , it is hard to discuss an assertion that is backed up with neither facts nor anecdotes. I'm not attacking your case but I'd like to see you make it. I have been following the current Synod for Africa and the African Church that is visible there does not square for me with the Church you describe. The African Fathers are much more engaged and relevant than you give them credit for:
http://www.zenit.org/article-27314?l=english
Re: But Benedict is doing what he can to save what can be saved of Christianity in Britain, and in Europe, or so it seems to me.
No, he isn't. He's doing what he can to ensure that more people choose to be Christian in union with Rome, rather than in union with Canterbury. That's a perfectly reasonable thing for him to do, and given his principles, maybe even the right thing for him to do. But don't put a more positive gloss on this then it deserves. He's trying to strengthen his own church at the expense of the Anglican Communion, not at the expence of secularism or agnosticism.
Ideally, I'd like a world in which the Catholic and Anglican churches were separate but amicable and mutually respectful. The Episcopal Church (no one else, really) it's true, decided to flip the bird to Rome by installing female bishops and gay priests. Pope Benedict had the opportunity to be the bigger and better man by continuing to extend fraternal friendship to the Anglicans, but he decided to flip the bird right back.
Franklin Jennings, my comment only concerned the United States as I was answering a specific statement made by Irenaeus which seemed to pertain to the US.
Ironically the C of E would likely be better off too, as the US experience shows, separation benefits churches as well
State-enforced secularizaton of the public square and privatization of religious expression (the French and Turkish approach, which is all too often what advocates of "separation of church and state" actually want) benefits neither church nor society.
Disestablishment does benefit churches to the extent it means freedom from state interference, which often corrupts and forces the churches to accomodate their messages to the political establishment. It certainly didn't benefit Catholicism in France, for example, to have all its bishops chosen by the Bourbons or by Napoleon. Getting rid of that sort of establishment is all to the good.
But I doubt that disestablishment would work for the Church of England, because that church by its nature is a national institution based on theological compromise. Take away its role as the national church, and it will inevitably fracture and dissolve, Anglo-Catholics going one direction, evangelicals another, and the broad church liberals hanging on to big, empty buildings.
Hector,
I'd hardly call granting the repeated entreaties of a few Anglicans "flipping the bird". But then, I'd also hardly call the timing of a decade or two "right back".
But then, if my goal was to ensure that my numbers stayed inflated while giving no real options to the humans who make those numbers, I'd get catty too if some nice man said "Hey, there's a seat on our boat."
Simon is correct in his disestablishment analysis. But this discussion really needs a definition of Church. RC and EO have one, evangelicals another, as do Anglicans, Baptists, not to mention many sect types. Many a nominal(in name only) or younger human will talk about a building. But in reality, the Church is all those who believe the mystery that God actually came to this planet and was fully human. Now if you live that reality you know you can't go to church. To think that you can go to church, when you are the Church, is actually schizophrenic. You will begin to act one way on worship day and fight it on other days. In this light, all this talk of sinking churches, the decline of religion, the sad fall of a state church is ludicrous. If you are the Church, they can torture, demand you stay quiet, steal you blind, and you may even deny it, but that changes nothing except prove your human. But.....human with an unbelievable strength in your heart. I don't go to church. I don't try to persuade you. I admire many who don't know the reality I know. But to be in the Kingdom of God(the Church here) is an amazing reality.
The English made the claim that their kings/queens ruled over France from the 15th century to 1801. It was part of their heraldry and titles all those years, even centuries after it had ceased to have any real meaning. Clearly, any nation that can maintain a meaningless pretence for generations in politics should have few problems keeping up ecclesiastical appearances, shrugging off criticisms of it with comments like "It's a British thing: you wouldn't understand."
Eurocentrism? The RC has major problems in the US, Europe, Mexico, Central America, and South America. Because of its size those problems are easy to and are ignored. I may have not made myself clear, I said that there are shadows looming in Africa, there are and they need addressing but both the RCs and Anglicans are growing there. I am not aware of major growth of the RCs in Asia.
Accommodation to Culture: And the Conservative Protestant, Evangelical, and Charismatic movements are not accomodated to the dominant American Culture? They have dominated the Republican Party for the last few decades. Not paying taxes, foreign wars, and gun rights somehow do not equal a useful political platform.
The liberal sects were right on civil rights, on their new found questioning of war, and they will be proved right regarding giving equal status to women and gays. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and ultimately universal health care are family and moral issues supported by liberal sects.
tscott,
Christ spoke of "the Church", the one He founded; He told us to "take it to the Church." People need to be taught to say things like, "we are church."
The Catholic Church is even now outliving the Church of England, for the Catholic Church is immortal while the Church of England is a human construction. Oh, and demography is destiny, and the bulk of mainline Protestant churches are engaged in demographic suicide through contraception, abortion, sterilization, and so on.
Not CoE, but related to the recent offer:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_vatican_anglican_south
Frankly, I think a careful reading of Rome's stance on the Anglican situation shows that the pope is really looking East.
Yes, there are doctrinal and practical differences between Rome and the Eastern Orthodox Churches, but there are experts on both sides of the divide who say that there is nothing that can't be ironed out and full reunion is possible.
People tend to lump the Orthodox in with Protestants, but Orthodoxy is powerful in defense of Tradition and most of the conflict points between Rome and the secular world these days are over the Moral Tradition which the Orthodox also hang tough on (although, sadly, few in the West pay attention to what the Orthodox believe or teach.)
The prediction seems to overlook the detail that what will be left with this draw off will be the more liberal wing of the Anglican Church. It's possible that it might get squeezed out, but it's equally possible that it will be more able to market itself to the more liberal population.
If it can hear and respond to the needs and the character of the community around it, then it will bring them in; sometimes it takes just this kind of split to allow the freedom needed to grow.
(The overall trend is hard to nail down, but I can at least point to my own More Light Presbyterian church as a strong example of a young and growing congregation in a region where most others that have not embraced a similar identity are old and dwindling)
Re: The Catholic Church is even now outliving the Church of England, for the Catholic Church is immortal while the Church of England is a human construction
The Anglican church is descended from the pre-reformation English church, and it has apostolic lineage as much as any other. In any case, Christ works through many conduits, not just through the apostolic church.
Re: But then, if my goal was to ensure that my numbers stayed inflated while giving no real options to the humans who make those numbers, I'd get catty too if some nice man said "Hey, there's a seat on our boat."
Disaffected Anglicans already had several options. They could become Orthodox, they could become Roman Catholic, or they could join one of the African provinces. There was no need for Benedict to allow them to indulge the pretence that you can be "Anglican" in union with the Pope. If you believe in papal primacy, and in all that implies regarding birth control, gay issues, and so forth, then go ahead and join Rome. But don't pretend that you can hang on to Anglican liturgy while so doing. Rejection of papal authority is essential to what Anglicanism is all about.
Personally I don't really care about numbers, I care about being faithful to Christ and to my conscience, and if Anglo-Catholicism is to become a small sect then so be it. I doubt that will happen, but even if it does, it isn't worth giving up on what you firmly believe.
Deacon Bresnahan,
There will be problems regarding reunion with the Orthodox too, not least divorce and birth control.
RobL:
"The liberal sects were right on civil rights, on their new found questioning of war, and they will be proved right regarding giving equal status to women and gays."
Liberal sects like...the Catholic Church?
We'll see what the future holds. But you are going to have address why the mainline Protestant denominations which have moved most aggressively on women's ordination and gay rights are also...failing to prosper, to put it diplomatically.
The Episcopal Church was losing 5% per annum *before* the latest schisms. And that's if you accept their numbers, of which there is evidence of considerable overreporting. If this is the future, it is not at all promising for Christianity or eve religion in general.
The Catholic Church does have some problems - without Hispanic immigration, it would be in decline. But then it is difficult to treat the Catholic Church as an undifferentiated whole. Much of the leadership of the Church since the 60' has been fairy liberal, at least until very recently. It would be worth asking just why the Catholic has had big drops in mass attendance, resort to sacraments, etc., since 1965. Simply repeating "Humana Vitae" is not going to cut it. And not just because the drops began three years before HV.
Re: It would be worth asking just why the Catholic has had big drops in mass attendance,
There's been a general decline in church attendance, period. The Catholic Church is not unusual in this regard. What has happened in the last 50 years is that the marginally religious people, those who went to church mainly because it was socially expected and Something To Do, have dropped out. I don't consider this a sign that the Church (any church really) is on the wrong track. It's just part of the times we live in.
Re: most of the conflict points between Rome and the secular world these days are over the Moral Tradition which the Orthodox also hang tough on
On birth control, divorce and a married clergy the Orthodox are with the modernizers, albeit for very different reasons. The Orthodox do stand with the traditionalists on abortion, gay marriage, and male-only ordination to the priesthood (the diaconate is principle is open to women in Orthodox ecclesiology, though there have no been no feamle ordinations to it in centuries).
Re:“The Anglican church is descended from the pre-reformation English church, and it has apostolic lineage as much as any other.”
Tomes have been written on this fantasy. Newman and the other 19th century Anglo-Catholics tried to make this idea fly. We all know where that led Newman, the pre-eminent Anglo-Catholic...to repudiate the fantasy and head to Rome.
The English Reformation was a break with Apostolic Christianity. Anglicanism is a thoroughly Protestant religion, more Protestant than nearly every other Protestant sect.
In any case, the Arians had a much stronger claim to apostolic lineage than the Anglicans. If it wasn’t enough for the Arians, it isn’t even close for the AC. There’s more to it than being able to some sort of convoluted genealogy.
Re: Tomes have been written on this fantasy. Newman and the other 19th century Anglo-Catholics tried to make this idea fly. We all know where that led Newman, the pre-eminent Anglo-Catholic...to repudiate the fantasy and head to Rome.
And plenty of other AC intellectuals, like Bishop Charles Gore, did _not_ head to Rome. What's your point? Tomes have been written on it because it is an idea that many Christians, me included, find convincing.
A while ago I brought up the Assyrian Church of the East on this blog, and Jon helpfully pointed out that while they professed a heterodox christology at one point (to wit, Nestorianism), the Spirit led them back to orthodoxy centuries ago, and now they profess a Christology no different from the Catholics. The same appears to be true, increasingly, of the Armenians and the other so-called "Monophysite" churches. If the apostolic lineage of the Assyrians and Armenians is intact inspite of their forays into Nestorianism and Monophysitism, then I fail to see why the apostolicity of the Anglican church could not survive the regrettable slide into low-church protestantism during the 17th and 18th centuries.
Re: Anglicanism is a thoroughly Protestant religion, more Protestant than nearly every other Protestant sect.
Wrongo. There are plenty of Anglican churches which practice private confession, recognise seven sacraments, believe in purgatorial fire, venerate the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Saints, celebrate the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception, genuflect during the creed, and various other decidedly non-Protestant practices and beliefs. Please find me a Baptist church which does any of the above.
My point is that the tomes (actually tracts) that have been written were attempts to justify the fantasy that Anglicans are somehow part of the Apostolic Church. No one’s bought it, not the Orthodox, not the Catholics, not even the pre-eminent champion of the idea (Newman), nor even most Anglicans. Try speaking with an average evangelical Anglican about it. Now, with the few Anglo Catholics left heading to Rome or the East, the idea is way past its sell date.
Re: “If the apostolic lineage of the Assyrians and Armenians is intact inspite of their forays into Nestorianism and Monophysitism, then I fail to see why the apostolicity of the Anglican church could not survive the regrettable slide into low-church protestantism during the 17th and 18th centuries.”
You seem to believe that Apostolic lineage is all that’s required. It’s not. Even if one were to grant that the AC has apostolic lineage (it doesn’t), that isn’t enough. As I said, the Arians had apostolic lineage in spades.
Re: “There are plenty of Anglican churches which practice private confession, recognize seven sacraments, believe in purgatorial fire, venerate the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Saints, celebrate the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception, genuflect during the creed, and various other decidedly non-Protestant practices and beliefs. “
This is true, but the core of Anglicanism is the thoroughly Protestant belief that private judgment trumps all. In theory, Anglicanism can be whatever it wishes to be, whatever “reason” (as defined by modern secularism), determines it proper for the individual. All the genuflecting, robes, incense, etc. are merely expressions of personal preference. It could all disappear tomorrow. In fact, it is disappearing as we speak.
Re: Even if one were to grant that the AC has apostolic lineage (it doesn’t),
Since the notorious, and notoriuously incorrect "Apostolici Curae", Anglican ordinations have involved the presence of Old Catholic or Polish National Catholic bishops whose consecrations were unquestionably valid. So on the matter of apostolic lineage you're simply wrong. (Not that you were _ever_ right on the issue of Anglican orders, but now you're _demonstrably_ wrong).
We ACs are attached to tradition too, but we see it as something evolving and to be interpreted in light of reason (just as is the case with scripture).
Re: All the genuflecting, robes, incense, etc. are merely expressions of personal preference. It could all disappear tomorrow. In fact, it is disappearing as we speak.
No, it isn't. Very few Anglicans are reuniting with Rome, and the ones who are mostly left communion with Canterbury a generation ago. The current breakaway from the Episcopal church tends to be led by low church Evangelical Anglicans in Africa. Currently many high church Anglicans are liberal, or moderate, on the gay issues.
If twenty years from now Anglo-Catholicism is dead, I'll concede you have a point. For the present, you don't. And untill then, I will just go on practicing my faith in the Anglo-Catholic tradition. I dislike very many things in today's Episcopal Church, but that is not enough for me to give up on Anglicanism. Indeed, for me to leave the Anglo-Catholic tradition because of some yahoos in the leadership of the Episcopal Church seems to be exactly the wrong thing to do, it would bespeak a lack of courage, a lack of faith, and a lack of hope on my part.
Hector,
I'm guessing you don't have children.
Whether you do or don't, ask yourself this question:
Who would you rather have teach your children at Sunday School or Vacation Bible School -- Pope Benedict or Gene Robinson? Pope Benedict or Katherine Jefferts-Schori? Pope Benedict or John Shelby Spong?
As The Wittenburg Door noted, in observation of the anniversary of Henry Newman leaving the Anglican church for the Roman, "Yeah, like that's a big difference."
Re: Who would you rather have teach your children at Sunday School or Vacation Bible School -- Pope Benedict or Gene Robinson? Pope Benedict or Katherine Jefferts-Schori? Pope Benedict or John Shelby Spong?
What a silly question.
Pope Benedict, of course. Without question. While there are many issues where I disagree with Pope Benedict, he is without question a good, learned, and holy man.
But I'd probably rather have my priest from back home teach Sunday School rather then Pope Benedict. He is _also_ a man of tremendous faith, learning, and compassion (and a former schoolteacher, actually) who is traditionalist and conservative on many matters (he's a single issue pro-life voter, for one) but is a liberal on the gay issue (having had a change of heart a few years ago). He's also a voluntary celibate, passionately devoted to Our Lady, and generally Anglo-Catholic down the line. Someone who, in other words, can't easily be categorized as either a liberal or conservative Anglican.
And I think Rowan Williams is also a perfectly good man and that it would be a close thing between him and Benedict, maybe with a slight edge to Fr. Williams. Rowan Williams is not the hipster postmodernist some take him for, and he's no Spong and no Schori.
You've simply taken the worst elements of the present-day Episcopal Church and tarred the entire Episcopal Church and Anglo-Catholic tradition (which will survive outside the US, and outside the Episcopal Church, even if it doesn't survive inside) with that sorry brush. The unpleasant and contemptible Spong is not typical of the Episcopal Church- if he was, then he wouldn't have been such a scandal.
I don't have children, for what it's worth, but I do hope to have children someday (three, ideally).
Hector, I hope everybody thinks as deeply about this as you, and is as honest with themselves in their answers and as honorable in their ultimate decision.
I don't like to do confessional disputes online, especially with somebody I've "been to battle with", however tangentially, in the wilds of the internet. At the point somebody starts getting upset, I get queasy. I love my Church, you love yours. I respect that. I'd love to have you on my side of the Tiber some day, if we can agree right down the line on essentials; it would be unprincipled to do it any other way.
NAO,
Thanks. I appreciate that you love your church, there's a lot to love about it. And I do respect it, a lot.
Hector,
My point is that it says something -- and not something good -- about the Episcopal Church that even you, a loyalist and a vocal skeptic toward Anglo-Catholics leaving for Rome, would still rather have Pope Benedict teach your children Christianity than the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church or the Episcopal Church's most famous clergymen or its most famous (a)theologian.
I think you generalize too much from your own atypical experience in the Episcopal Church. Or rather you cite your own anecdotal experience as refutation of any negative generalization anyone makes about the Episcopal Church, even when those generalizations are made on the basis of experiential evidence much broader than your own.
The reason most Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals -- most Anglicans in other words -- have already left the Episcopal Church is not because they aren't "stickers" like you.
It's because their circumstances in the Episcopal Church were worse than your own and/or they were less willing to compromise on doctrine and dogma to accommodate the liberals than you yourself have been, being something of a liberal and/or a leftist yourself.
You need to recognize that you may soon find yourself in circumstances much more typical of the average Anglo-Catholic or Evangelical Anglican than yours have been so far, and, at that point, you may see people's decisions to leave instead of stay in a whole different light -- and likewise your own decision to stay instead of leave.
And this will be especially true if you have children by then. It's one thing for an adult already formed by orthodox Christianity to "stick" things out in a church in which a terminal virus of liberal revision has set in. But it's quite another thing for an orthodox Christian to submit his or her children to "Christian" formation by those who see their job as passing that terminal virus along to children who have never had the chance to be formed by the orthodox Christianity that serves as a vaccine.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.