Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams expressed his concern that the Episcopal Church’s house of deputies voted to overturn a piece of legislation from 2006 General Convention, which urged bishops to show restraint when electing bishops that could fracture the state of the Anglican Communion. The 2006 legislation was enacted in response to calls from the Anglican Communion for the Episcopal church to be considerate of the entire communion, after TEC elected (and approved) Gene Robinson as bishop in 2003. Robinson is openly gay and lives with his partner. The house of deputies at this general convention is viewed as super-progressive, even much more so than the bishops of the Episcopal church. This is demonstrated by the fact that the resolution was passed 151-66. The bishops have yet to vote on this, and there is no certainty that Episcopal bishops will vote for something that very well may fracture their relationship with the rest of the Anglican communion, thereby reducing the Episcopal church to basically a congregationalist church of 2 million (although who is in communion with whom within Anglicanism these days is tricky, so it is likely quite a few Anglicans worldwide will still be in communion with TEC).
Since many conservatives have left the Episcopal church since 2003, including a few dioceses, and many entire parishes, it is no surprise that there are very few conservative voices at this General Convention. In some ways, the real losers may be the moderates, because conservatives have rarely been successful getting their views heard, but they did function to moderate the far left in TEC liturgically, morally, and theologically.
The Episcopal Church determines its policies, liturgies, etc. through regular (every 3 years) meetings of bishops, clergy, and laity called General Convention. It was at a General Convention in 2003 that openly gay and partnered Gene Robinson was approved as bishop, starting off the worldwide firestorm in the Anglican Communion. TEC this time around is wrestling with same-sex blessings, how to embrace (or not) homosexual activity, liturgical concerns, and social questions. Clearly the biggest issues for TEC revolve around sexuality, but for many people, myself included, the liturgical questions are the most interesting.
Since I cannot cover all the topics myself (nor would I want to since this is a Catholic blog), I thought I would link to various resources on the event:
I know many of us have strong feelings about TEC and wonder what the point of praying would even be. But, I still think we should pray for those in TEC and their General Convention.
I was reading some of the pieces of legislation at the 2009 Episcopal General Convention, happening now. There are your usual (and many) resolutions calling for same-sex marriage rites, and even some talk of formalizing “open communion,” but one I was reading through really bothered me, and it was B004, Hymnal Revision Study. The rationale for hymnal revision is as follows:
The world of this new millennium is very different from that of the prior century, when The Hymnal 1982 and its predecessors were created. Rapid liturgical, cultural and technological change continue to have an impact on the lives of all the faithful. A study of the need for a new hymnal for the Episcopal Church would explore sensitivity to expansive language, the diversity of worship styles, the richness of multicultural and global liturgical forms, and the enduring value of our Anglican musical heritage.
This seems to me to be code for “the old hymns aren’t politically correct enough for modern people, so let’s further chop them up so a few people on the TEC liturgical committees don’t get their heart rates up every time God is called ‘Father.’” Derek had an excellent piece up awhile back about the incessant need to tamper with the Book of Common Prayer (and was accused of being cranky by another blogger!), and I myself often wonder where the desire for constant liturgical revision comes from. Granted, I approve of the new translation of the English Catholic Mass, but that is because the new translation actually undoes some of the more radical work done by the ICEL in the past.
When I was in Episcopal seminary for a quarter we started out using straight Morning Prayer from the BCP for our daily worship. Good, right? Absolutely. However, the next quarter, the plan was to begin using trial materials from “Enriching Our Worship” because the BCP wasn’t inclusive enough. This was because a few students complained about it, even though these same people changed the words to the BCP as they said then anyway (for example, all the “he” pronouns in the psalms were replaced with “she” pronouns…while, of course, everybody else read the texts as written). Mind you, besides these two people, we all loved the BCP, and ranted and raved to that effect, but the squeaky wheels get the grease. I guess my point is that I don’t think there is a strong demand to change hymns and alter the BCP, but the people “in the know” and who complain the loudest make it out that your average Christian just can’t handle more traditional liturgy.
There will be a lot of talk about this General Convention and same-sex marriage, but an even bigger issue may be liturgical issues, like “open communion,” church calendar revision, and the calls for new hymns and liturgies.
I know this post will seem a little like nitpicking, but I’ve noticed that when some conservatives leave the Episcopal Church, they name their churches in ways that aren’t terribly catholic. The names sometimes reflect what you would see at a Presbyterian or Baptist church. I looked through a few conservative Anglican websites that are associated with the AMiA and ACNA and found that while names like St. Peter, St. Andrew, and even Divine Mercy Anglican were present, there were also some other interesting, more evangelical ones: Emmanuel Anglican Fellowship, City of Grace, Legacy Anglican Church, Faith Anglican, Church of the Word, Galilee Church, New Hope Anglican, New Wine Anglican. While there’s nothing wrong with these names, this is indicative of how the new, emerging alternative Anglicanism in North America has a huge evangelical contingent. How New Wine Anglican and Divine Mercy Anglican (a FIF parish btw) will co-exist and thrive in the long run is a big question.
For those of you who haven’t been following religious news on the net, a group of former Episcopal bishops, conservatives who have left TEC, and others, have formed the Anglican Church in North America, and it has been recognized as a legitimate Anglican body by some worldwide leaders of the Anglican Communion as an alternative to the Episcopal Church. In other words, six years after Gene Robinson’s consecration, some sort of actual “re-alignment” may be occurring.
At the ACNA recent gathering, Metropolitan Jonah of the Orthodox Church in America spoke of entering into ecumenical relations with ACNA, rather than the Episcopal church. He spoke of certain things that would have to be addressed before the Orthodox Church would ever enter into full communion with this new Anglican body, and these issues are:
1) ACNA must affirm the 7 ecumenical councils
2) Removal of the Filioque clause must occur
3) Calvinism is a “condemned heresy” and must be denied
4) “Anti-Sacramentalism” must be denied
5) Iconoclasm must end
6) Ordination of women must “be resolved”
In other words, there is no way in you-know-where that the Orthodox Church in America is ever going to enter into full communion with ACNA (or TEC, of course). There are already prominent Anglican conservatives defending Calvinism, and rejecting the fifth, sixth, and seventh ecumenical councils. If an Anglican wants to be Orthodox, there is really nothing stopping him or her from actually becoming Orthodox. The ACNA was not set up to become Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic. Any historical Church that is thinking of entering into ecumenical relations with ACNA needs to realize that while ACNA does have a fair-share of sacramental, Anglo-Catholic, folks, a good chunk (the majority?) are evangelicals, and many are evangelical Calvinists. While some evangelicals oppose women’s ordination, others have no problem with it.
If I were still Anglican, ACNA might be a slightly better alternative to TEC, but honestly, it seems to me like it is similar to the same hodge-podge of different beliefs that currently make up TEC and Anglicanism worldwide, except instead of being united by the English crown (or perhaps the prayer book), the ACNA folks are united in their opposition to the moral and theological direction of TEC. Thus we have yet another tenuous alliance. Honestly, I think unification by the crown or prayer book makes for a more lasting alliance than unification by opposition to someone else. I may be looking at ACNA in the most negative way possible. I realize this, but I just can’t see hardcore evangelicals and hardcore Anglo-Catholics, who have strongly differing views on fundamental issues, remaining united too long, especially now that they have effectively left TEC.
And by this I mean the Catholic movement within Anglicanism, not Catholicism in England, although the two could become the same again. For a movement devoted to reclaiming the past, talk of the future is very important. The mass conversion of a group of Episcopalian nuns has gotten me thinking about the topic of Anglo-Catholicism as a movement. Will it survive? Can it survive? How should it survive? Does it even matter? Here are a few options that I’ve either thought about personally or read about on the internet:
-Stay and work for a “reform” of the reform (or innovation)- Rowan Williams is not Pope Benedict (in the scope of his jurisdiction or his resolve) and at any rate, I think the changes in the last 30+ years within Anglicanism run too deep. TEC has a female presiding bishop and will probably have a majority of female clergy in the next few years and the vast majority of the world’s Anglicans are evangelical.
-Form or join an alternative Anglican community- This has been a preferred solution for many Anglo-Catholics in the USA since the changes in the Prayer Book and women’s ordination. It has not led to much except a proliferation of small churches populated largely by bishops. Plus, it’s kind of ironic to further a Catholic movement through continuous schism.
-Stay and hunker down- Considering how much Anglo-Catholics are in the minority now in the USA and especially the world, this option doesn’t have much promise. You can only survive the onslaught of progressivism and evangelicalism so long before something has to give.
-Change- This has been the view of groups like Affirming Catholicism, basically saying people can keep the ceremonial and ritual and some of the theology, but jettison other traditional AC teachings like the male only priesthood and traditional sexual morality.
-Swim to Rome or an Orthodox jurisdiction- A fair number of people have taken this option and it could end the nervousness about orders that grips some Anglo-Catholics. And, this option would allow them an opportunity to be a part of a group that generally, although not always, shares their strong Catholic views. However, those leaving often have to give up dignified liturgy or their Anglo identity. And, on the ground level, some Catholics (and even Orthodox) espouse views just as crazy as TEC’s most loony.
-Hey, wait a minute! We’re all Anglo-Catholics now- Well, Anglicans anyway…and this is a big part of the issue…Anglo-Catholicism managed to win a bunch of the battles (vestments, high church ceremonial, Roman customs, images, etc.) while thoroughly losing the war. The war they lost? Catholic ecclesiology.
Young Fogey has blogged that most of the All Saints Sisters of the Poor are soon to become Catholic. Two sisters will remain Episcopalian for the time being, although the rest have apparently made the commitment to swim the Tiber. It turns out that the chaplain of the sisters is a former pastor of mine, Fr. Warren Tanghe, from when I attended an Anglo-Catholic parish in Atlanta. Word is that he too is coming Romeward, which is not surprising given his theology (although I do recall him having a discussion with a supply priest from the parish, who eventually swam the Tiber himself, about the role of the pope, and Fr. Tanghe was not the “anglo-papalist” that this supply priest was). The sisters have a rich history, and a very traditional understanding of themselves and their vocations; they also make and sell holy cards, if you are interested in their products.
YF also mentioned rumors about the Vatican setting up some sort of generous plan for Anglican parishes worldwide that wish to become Roman Catholic. This falls under the “I’ll believe it when I see it” category, but I think Anglicans, when they are traditional, do liturgy very, very, very, well, and we will be much richer if even a few Anglicans take us up on such an offer.
UPDATE:
Here are a few links that provide more information on the All Saints Sisters becoming Roman Catholic:
As a former Anglican, I still see a lot of the good in my former tradition, most especially the dignity in liturgy as shown in the Book of Common Prayer. Fortunately, the Catholic Church, through the Anglican Use, has “Catholicized” the Book of Common Prayer. It is now the Book of Divine Worship and is mostly the BCP with more Catholic elements such as prayers to the Saints. The book is huge and costly, but you can also find it online (warning: 900 + page .pdf). It may be especially appealing to those of us who used to be Anglicans.
My PhD studies really set me on my Catholic journey in a deep theological way though I did not realise it at the time. I have been looking at Bishop Lancelot Andrewes as a catalyst for ecumenism with the Catholic Church in the area of Eucharistic sacrifice. Andrewes was in regular dialogue with S. Robert Bellarmine SJ and it is in this dialogue and Andrewes’ other writings that I saw how Catholic he was with regards to the Eucharist being the Christian offering which consisted of more than a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. It was and is propitiatory as well as other things.
Through my time of study in Catholic sacramental theology and viewing my own priestly ministry within this theological framework the question of communio began to frequently come to mind. I had fully embraced Catholic sacramental theology and believed that I could be a Catholic in the Church of England and planned on retirement from the C of E later in life. With all that is going on around the Anglican Communion presently, and particularly within the C of E and how she makes decisions on matters of doctrine, I began to ask questions about authority. As a theologian praying for reunion with the Holy See the question I was now asking was, ‘on whose terms does this reunion take place?’
What I became aware of was that it was almost impossible to say ‘the Church teaching is’ within the Anglican church because there are so many various opinions on matters of sacraments, liturgy, morality, scripture etc. What I did not want to experience anymore was proclaiming the teaching of the Church only to end up defending myself rather than the Anglican church defending me. This has become an ever-increasing impossibility that is no secret to the entire Anglican world. My preaching would always be seen as a matter of personal opinion rather than having the authority of the Magisterium that backs up what I teach publicly. Of course there is dissent in the Catholic Church but it is always that, dissent towards what Mother Church proclaims as authoritatively true. It is the truth of Mother Church that I embrace as my own deep personal faith.
In January of this year I began to seriously pray about my journey and was moving deeper into the question of communio. What was God saying to me and why did he bring me all the way to England to have me consider the possibility of becoming a Catholic? What about the last 19 years of my life and the pursuit of serving him in full-time ministry? What do I do about the ever-increasing reaffirmation and sense of call to vocational priesthood? These items I took to prayer with Ss Bede and Cuthbert at the Durham Cathedral each Friday during Lent. There I prayed for requests given to me by people from around the world and my own spiritual journey was a part of this prayer ministry. I gave myself to Mary and her Son and said ‘please lead and guide in the way you want me to go either by remaining a priest in the C of E or a move to the Catholic Church’. At this time I scheduled my retreat during Easter week to make a spiritual journey and pilgrimage to Rome. I had a number of meetings there with priests and a former Episcopal bishop (Father Jeffrey Steenson) who had converted from Anglicanism as well as an American Catholic priest who is in Rome finishing his PhD on the Pastoral Provision of the late Pope John Paul II.
In my heart, I knew that I had grown to love and believe the Catholic faith as it was taught in the Catholic Catechism. On my final day in Rome on 17 April 2009 I went to the tomb of S. Peter and knelt and prayed for quite some time. I knew in my heart I was a Catholic and asked what it was that was keeping me from converting. All sorts of fears ran through my head and I felt very restless there and at times just knelt quietly asking S. Peter to pray for me because I didn’t know how or the way to go. At the end of this time I went over and knelt at JPII’s tomb and asked him to please pray for me as I was scared to make a journey like this with a wife and six children not knowing how God would provide for us.
After praying with JPII, I got up and went to S. Peter’s tomb again and there with conviction of heart signed the Roman Catholic Catechism stating ‘This is the Faith of the Church and this is my Faith’, and signed my name with the day’s date. Before leaving the Basilica I walked over to the statue of S. Peter with the key in his hand, rubbed his foot, and said, ‘I am going out to find the way, open the door and make this happen and pray for me as I make this journey.’
One week later I was in a meeting with a couple of Catholic bishops in London. I had made the commitment in my heart that coming home to the Catholic Church was God’s plan for me. I have now made the biggest jump I have ever made in my life and I am trying really hard not to struggle too much as I fall while waiting for God to catch me. The one thing that has not changed in my heart but has only grown over the past nine years is my desire to remain in England as a Catholic. This desire has been confirmed through much prayer and discernment and all signs point to us remaining in England for the entirety of our lives. For numerous reasons, I am discerning God calling me to the southern region of the country, which has been my plan for three years. London will be our new home and if I am ever to be priested in the Catholic Church it is where I will be incardinated…
Maybe we’ll call it an [un]even exchange for Fr. Cutie…
According to the recent tally at Stand Firm, it is becoming more and more unlikely (although still possible) that Kevin Forrester, dubbed the “Buddhist Bishop-Elect” will be approved by the Episcopal church. This is because Forrester has been ordained from a Buddhist community, and also seems to like fudging classical Christian doctrine. Even more traditionally progressive (how’s that for a phrase??) dioceses and bishops are opposed to his election.
I believe that this shows the power of the new communication. Without the internet, would anybody really care about what a tiny Episcopal diocese in Michigan does? Would most Episcopalians even know what was going on if it weren’t for the internet? I often wonder if John Spong would have been approved as an Episcopal bishop had the internet been as widespread back then as today. One of the great things about the internet which many ecclesiastical wafflers hate is that the net shines light on theological and moral double-speak. You can’t say “I affirm Christ’s resurrection” to a group of average laypersons today, and then essentially say the resurrection is bunk a few weeks later to some academics, because this information WILL be available on the internet later for all to see. Score a point for clarity!
Let’s give credit here. The Episcopal church is setting boundaries. From a Catholic and Orthodox standpoint, TEC has pushed moral and disciplinary boundaries pretty far as of late, but in this instance, the Episcopal church is saying that doctrine does matter (at least to the degree that one cannot be a Christian bishop and an ordained Buddhist at the same time).
I recently came across the website of Anglican priest Fr. David Smith who is not only a minister in the Anglican tradition, but also a boxer and martial arts expert. It also seems that he has taken a bold role in speaking out in favor of Palestinian rights, especially for the Christians there. That takes a lot of guts too.
He has started a website called “Fighting Fathers” which is dedicated to fighting social ills and working for real change in the world.
He even runs a Christian fight club (physical fighting, not like the “fighting fathers”) and goes to great pains to assert that it is not a “gentle, touchy feely self-help group” but one that will actually train you to win competitions. They have their unique style of martial arts, but adhere to a general Christian philosophy of faith, fellowship, and fitness.
My thoughts on all of this? I love it. The Catholic Church and most mainline Christian denominations have become quite feminized. Don’t believe me? Look at the staffing at most Catholic parishes and schools. Sure, the priest is always a guy, but most of the support staff is inevitably women. Now, I don’t intend to demean women or the great work most of them do. In fact, it’s often because men do not step up to the plate that women do most of the day to day work, including education, activity planning, and liturgy design and implementation, in a parish. However, when their ideas and activities are too “touchy-feely” and alienate men this then leads to even fewer men willing to take on leadership roles. It’s a vicious cycle of male alienation and males, especially boys, lose out.
Some will say that Fr. Dave plays to male stereotypes. Perhaps; but most stereotypes have a bit of truth. And, from my teaching experiences, most guys love sports, especially contact ones. Most of them also think the martial arts are extremely cool. I agree myself. They don’t usually feel the same way about religion, since to them it’s mostly singing banal songs they would never listen to in their spare time, boring meditating or reflecting, or sitting still and being quiet for long periods of time. While religion does involve reflection, sitting still, and other not too “exciting” things, we need to show our boys and older men that religion and the Church can also include more masculine activities…like a Christian fight club run by a priest…and that these are legitimate.
Kudos to Fr. Dave. I just wish he were Catholic because we need guys like this.
This is an absolutely hilarious excerpt from the British TV show “Yes Prime Minister” on the definition of a modernist in the Church of England. It could apply to any community, though.
I haven’t really weighed in on Kevin Thew-Forrester, the Episcopal bishop-elect who claims to also be a Buddhist, but I thought now would be a good time.
First, the biggest problem doesn’t seem to be his high view of Buddhism, but his low view of Christ and traditional religion. His Trinity Sunday homily betrays an unorthodox (or at least shockingly unclear) understanding of Jesus’ divinity and his inclusivizing, new-agesque liturgical revisions indicate that he is no respecter of traditional religion. Is his Buddhist affiliation a problem? If he sees the good in Buddhism and tries to incorporate some aspects of Buddhist spirituality while remaining true to traditional Christianity, probably not. But, even with this approach, being the primary teacher in his diocese (which a bishop is, at least for Catholics) is problematic. However, if he promotes syncretism, then it would be a big problem, since Buddhism has many elements that are totally incompatible with traditional Christianity, e.g. the afterlife.
Second, I must add that I find this whole affair somewhat amusing and I often chuckle when I read about rich, white Westerners embracing Buddhism. They typically practice a therapeutic, feel good version of Buddhism that is about inner tranquility, peace, love, and hippy tendencies. This, of course, has little to do with actual Buddhism as practiced by most of the world’s Buddhists which is very supernatural and dare I say, superstitious.
So, should this guy be made a bishop? From a Catholic perspective, no way, primarily because of his views on Jesus and the liturgy. Of course, to be perfectly blunt, he would fit in well with what is currently the Episcopal mainstream. Those fighting his election are fighting in vain, I fear. TEC is closer to Mr. Thew-Forrester than the evangelicals or Anglo-Catholics.
Two bloggers, one an Episcopal priest, have some interesting theories about so-called institutional religion, and what they think will bring more people to faith in God (although they tell us we shouldn’t use the term “God”). Unfortunately, the article simply repeats what priests were learning in seminaries in the 1960s and 1970s (where they were trained by an institutional church by the way!). From the article:
What is happening? Are Americans losing faith, or merely losing faith in institutional religion.
Most Christian institutions cling to the dogma and doctrine established in 325 A.D. by a religious minority. They are not incorporating all the new facts that we have found in recent archeological digs or in recently discovered writings from the periods written about in the Bible. For instance, The Gospel of Thomas, written at the same time as the Gospel of John, yet excluded from the Bible since Thosmas[sic] did not include the Passion of Jesus Christ, gives us a different insight into salvation.
Fundamentalism in Christianity, or belief in the literal translation of the Bible (or belief in Jesus Christ as the only way to salvation), while providing a safe haven for many, EXCLUDES the majority of spiritual people. Progressive believers by living a metaphorical translation of the Bible are INCLUSIVE. They acknowledge the legitimacy of all religions.
We have all heard this before, although it is difficult to understand why these words would come from the mouth of Christians. While I am no fan of fundamentalism, and I wish the world religions would get along despite differences, I am also no fan of spirituality that is so gooey and vague, that it lacks substance. For many of us, Christianity is a challenge, especially in today’s world. If we wanted to take “the easy way out,” we would just believe like these two bloggers believe, that everybody is right, and nobody is wrong, and that the Bible says nothing offensive about anything or anybody. In today’s culture, this is the painless way to approach religion, but I also think it is a rather thoughtless way to approach it. After all, must a religion change to be compatible with our often vacuous culture? Don’t the same folks who want to sanitize the faith for our current culture criticize those who did so in the past?
Fortunately, the bloggers provide us with a sure fire way to grow a religion, which has definitely NOT worked for the mainlines over the last 40 years:
Until religious institutions understand this and change to become inclusive of these thousands of God, they will continue to die.
In other words, if every religion would just recognize that we all worship the same God, our problems would disappear! That is right. God the Father is equal to Moloch. “Love your neighbor” and child sacrifice…it’s all good!
I respect the rights of these individuals to believe what they want. However, maybe it would be wise for the Episcopal priest writer to take off his collar and get out of an institutional religion, if he feels so strongly about it. If I believed as he believes, I think I would find another church, one that doesn’t say the Nicene Creed every Sunday. Of course, if you found a church that accepts thousands of gods, composing a creed may be a little difficult…
Anglican leaders worldwide are not too enthusiastic about the prospect of a conservative North American province. You will recall that recently some Episcopal dioceses have pulled out of the Episcopal church, and associated among themselves. This has led to the creation of a new province that overlaps with the Episcopal church’s province.
Even though in 2004, many of us believed the Primates would “save Anglicanism” from the influence of extreme modernism, the reality is that the Primates, as a whole, have been pretty lukewarm across the board in their response to recent Anglican events. I have said it once, and I’ll say it again: Anglicanism does not have the authority structures in place to produce the type of church that many Anglican conservatives want. The system itself is the problem.
Posted by David Bennett 
Posted by Jonathan B 
Posted by David Bennett 
