For Paidiske: Anglican ecclessiology and some alternative perspectives

[FireDragon76]

@Paidiske

Infallibility? No, I don't believe in infallibility. I do believe that it's in the process of working through things together that we can discern what God is up to in our midst.

Which is no statement about what God might be doing outside the institution, but more a question of how we seek to cooperate with God within it.

I think when we start thinking about our vocation as Christians as about collegiality with other Christians above serving the least, the lost, and the last... something has gone off the rails.

I'm also afraid you are in danger of tossing out some of the central insights of the Reformation as you approach issues about what it means to be a Christian in the 21st century. You might find reading David Waschall's blog, Under the Sun, helpful to find a different perspective.

Here is one of his essays on his critique of the notion that Christianity is primarily about the acquisition of holiness, cooperation with God, or "incarnation", for instance:

The Problem with Deification (Essay)


Dr. David Wagschall is a professor at the Toronto School of Theology. He was raised Lutheran but spent some time in the Orthodox Church in America, before returning to his childhood faith. I find his perspective helpful and it's one of the primary ways I've come to understand being a Christian in the modern world. It's a bit iconoclastic but it's good to be disabused of illusions once in a while. He's not assuming complete unfamiliarity with what he calls the "permeative tradition" (the paradigm you seem to be focused on), but he is assuming that as a basis for critique and working from there.

 

[Paidiske]

I don't really see the relevance of the linked article to our discussion.

The underlying question, for me, is: what do the different Anglican provinces owe one another due to our bond in a global communion?

That's not to say that the church is perfect or that we can perfect it - I would reject both claims - but that I believe that as Anglicans we have a claim upon one another as we are church together.

You seem to be rejecting that idea; to be saying that we owe one another nothing, we have no claims upon one another. That is not Anglican ecclesiology as I understand it.

And that's not about being above mission in any of its aspects, as if I'm saying we should neglect mission to focus on unity. In fact I would reject that idea; the purpose, the whole reason for existence of the bonds between us is to make us more effective in mission!

 

[FireDragon76]

I
That's not to say that the church is perfect or that we can perfect it - I would reject both claims - but that I believe that as Anglicans we have a claim upon one another as we are church together.

Yikes! Holding the Church together? Isn't that the Holy Spirit's job? That's a huge burden to place on Christian consciences. It sounds like something dreamed up in a modern academy of divinity or perhaps an Orthodox seminary. It's also potentially indicative of theological narcissism.

As far as familial obligations go, Jesus didn't always have kind words to say about that notion (Luke 9:60 , Luke 18:29, etc.). Making familial or collegial bonds the sine qua none of discipleship seems problematic in light of that.

You seem to be rejecting that idea; to be saying that we owe one another nothing, we have no claims upon one another. That is not Anglican ecclesiology as I understand it.

Many people in the Anglican Communion seem to have been relatively comfortable in their collegiality for a long time, and it doesn't seem very Gospel-centered to assume that their comfort should be the overriding concern for provinces facing unique pastoral challenges. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's not like Episcopalians haven't said they aren't interested in helping with sharing resources with other Anglicans... but it's isn't helping when others demand that your status as an Anglican is denied altogether.

And that's not about being above mission in any of its aspects, as if I'm saying we should neglect mission to focus on unity. In fact I would reject that idea; the purpose, the whole reason for existence of the bonds between us is to make us more effective in mission!

Except when those bonds are used against Christians for actually engaging in missions that are contextualized to the particular situation they find themselves in. A Christian's vocation should always involve responding to concrete persons we encounter in our actual lives, over ideas and notions, however lofty and sublime. It seems to me GAFCON is peddling primarily in ideas over actual relationships. If there's a badguy here, it's not TEC, in that regard.

I do believe Dr. Wagschall's blog could be helpful here elucidating this. I also believe reading Bonhoeffer's Letters and Papers from Prison could be useful as well.

 

[Paidiske]

Yikes! Holding the Church together? Isn't that the Holy Spirit's job? That's a huge burden to place on Christian consciences.

I didn't use the verb "to hold" the church together. I said that we are church together. Again, I'm not sure what you're arguing, except that you seem to think we owe one another nothing?

Many people in the Anglican Communion seem to have been relatively comfortable in their collegiality for a long time, and it doesn't seem very Gospel-centered to assume that their comfort should be the overriding concern for provinces facing unique pastoral challenges.

Comfort? What has this to do with comfort? I would argue that staying together is about living with a degree of discomfort, and rejecting one another is the comfortable thing.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's not like Episcopalians haven't said they aren't interested in helping with sharing resources with other Anglicans... but it's isn't helping when others demand that your status as an Anglican is denied altogether.

Which hasn't actually happened, either.

Except when those bonds are used against Christians for actually engaging in missions that are contextualized to the particular situation they find themselves in. A Christian's vocation should always involve responding to concrete persons we encounter in our actual lives, over ideas and notions, however lofty and sublime. It seems to me GAFCON is peddling primarily in ideas over actual relationships. If there's a badguy here, it's not TEC, in that regard.

I have no respect for GAFCON, as you know.

But I also don't think we can just present this as "TEC boldly went where no one had gone before in mission, and the rest of us should applaud them for it." There are questions here which need to be worked through, and serious enough questions that the communion as a whole feels the need to make that a shared process. I don't think that's inherently bad or wrong, although then we need to ask what that process will look like.