Bishop Lawrence Out of the TEC

[MKJ]

What process?

It doesn't seem like any part of the Communion is interested in submitting to any sort of process that isn't predetermined in advance to produce the answer they they think is correct.

The process has been that we submit ourselves to Scripture; to the historical teaching of the Church as understood through patristic sources, the liturgy, and historic Anglican teaching; and depending on the level of the question to the other parts of our diocese, our national church, and the Communion, with the rule being that the level an issue belongs at is decided by consensus.

This is pretty much how the Church has worked historically through the conciliar or collegial tradition, and although Rome took us on a detour to a monarchical model, that is what it seems we tried to return to (with some unfortunate issues with relation to secular authority.)

I agree no one wants to submit to anything, but I think it is wrong to say the process doesn't exist - it exists in the structure of the Church.

I think the question is why did it go wrong.

 

[mark46]

I don't know "why" the process went wrong. I will suggest "when" it went wrong. It went wrong when GAFCON primates started boycotting Anglican Communion meetings. In the US, it went wrong when those who disagreed with the decisions of the national Church institutions decided to leave the Church, after heloing elect the Presiding Bishop as their parting gift to we who stayed. All the major branches of the Church have endured decades of poor or misguided leadership over the many centuries. The answer is not to self-righteously wave our bibles at our leaders and walk out.

The alternative in most enduring institutions is to understand that "this too shall pass". This set of leaders is here for a season. Perhaps we made a mistake electing the current ABC. Perhaps (horror of horrors), we might make that mistake twice in a row. That is NOT a reason to wreck the Communion. I understand that I may be in a minority on this issue, both in the US and abroad (and certainly in my local church and diocese).

Perhaps, at the root of the issue is whether we follow the Protestant model of schism upon schism, or the Roman and Orthodox model of grin and bear it. The approaches to leadership that strays for the Truth, based on our individual perspectives, is quite different.

The process has been that we submit ourselves to Scripture; to the historical teaching of the Church as understood through patristic sources, the liturgy, and historic Anglican teaching; and depending on the level of the question to the other parts of our diocese, our national church, and the Communion, with the rule being that the level an issue belongs at is decided by consensus.

This is pretty much how the Church has worked historically through the conciliar or collegial tradition, and although Rome took us on a detour to a monarchical model, that is what it seems we tried to return to (with some unfortunate issues with relation to secular authority.)

I agree no one wants to submit to anything, but I think it is wrong to say the process doesn't exist - it exists in the structure of the Church.

I think the question is why did it go wrong.

 

[ebia]

The process has been that we submit ourselves to Scripture; to the historical teaching of the Church as understood through patristic sources, the liturgy, and historic Anglican teaching; and depending on the level of the question to the other parts of our diocese, our national church, and the Communion, with the rule being that the level an issue belongs at is decided by consensus.

This is pretty much how the Church has worked historically through the conciliar or collegial tradition, and although Rome took us on a detour to a monarchical model, that is what it seems we tried to return to (with some unfortunate issues with relation to secular authority.)

I agree no one wants to submit to anything, but I think it is wrong to say the process doesn't exist - it exists in the structure of the Church.

I think the question is why did it go wrong.

Do we even agree when it went wrong or exactly what was working before then? I'm not at all sure that we do.

If the models you talk about actually worked why were there so many splits in the church before? For most of the Anglican church's history, from the begnning it has mostly held together by force of English law and decision making within English politics.

 

[MKJ]

I don't know "why" the process went wrong. I will suggest "when" it went wrong. It went wrong when GAFCON primates started boycotting Anglican Communion meetings. In the US, it went wrong when those who disagreed with the decisions of the national Church institutions decided to leave the Church, after heloing elect the Presiding Bishop as their parting gift to we who stayed. All the major branches of the Church have endured decades of poor or misguided leadership over the many centuries. The answer is not to self-righteously wave our bibles at our leaders and walk out.

The alternative in most enduring institutions is to understand that "this too shall pass". This set of leaders is here for a season. Perhaps we made a mistake electing the current ABC. Perhaps (horror of horrors), we might make that mistake twice in a row. That is NOT a reason to wreck the Communion. I understand that I may be in a minority on this issue, both in the US and abroad (and certainly in my local church and diocese).

Perhaps, at the root of the issue is whether we follow the Protestant model of schism upon schism, or the Roman and Orthodox model of grin and bear it. The approaches to leadership that strays for the Truth, based on our individual perspectives, is quite different.

No, I think it probably went wrong quite some time before GAFGON even existed. The existence of GAFGON came about because of the problems with the process that already existed.

You seem to have a real bee in your bonnet about them.

 

[MKJ]

Do we even agree when it went wrong or exactly what was working before then? I'm not at all sure that we do.

If the models you talk about actually worked why were there so many splits in the church before? For most of the Anglican church's history, from the begnning it has mostly held together by force of English law and decision making within English politics.

I don't know when it started, and yes, that would be helpful in figuring out what the problem was! I think that overall it has worked (looking from the 1st century till the present), though never perfectly.

In the case of the AC it seems like after they ordained the first woman priest in the 40's, it was working to some degree - when some national churches and diocese were uncomfortable with it, they stopped until consensus could be reached.

But by the time the 70's came around, it seemed that something had gone wrong.

My thoughts on this are not very complete, but things that occur to me as possibilities to consider:

- they began to push issues down to too low a level, for example the ordination of women was left to the national churches, which was probably not feasible.

- the loss of a real understanding for Tradition, as something necessary to understand Scripture correctly and as having authority.

- related to that, a divergence in liturgical expression and the adoption of post-modern liturgy.

- also related, in at least some places like North America, an idea seemed to be adopted that the Church was a sort of continuing revelation rather than a deposit of faith or even a development of doctrine in the Catholic sense.

Something else that strikes me is the idea, which I first read in Orthodox circles, that it is the kind of single leader model that we see in the papacy that drives inappropriate or too-fast theological changes. While we don't have the papacy and on paper are closer to the Orthodox model, in practice that isn't really so. Effectively, in the bishops we seem to have many little popes. We don't have the type of vertical authority seen in Orthodox churches, where bishops who teach outside the faith are corrected by other bishops, or even the laity will refuse to accept the teachings of bishops if they do not seem to match the teachings of the faith (as in the council of Florence.)

And I wonder if this relates to the increasing tendency for power and resources to concentrate at higher levels - as we see in TEC in the office of the presiding bishop, or around bishops in individual diocese?

 

[Albion]

Wow. What an impressive analysis!

 

[ebia]

I don't know when it started, and yes, that would be helpful in figuring out what the problem was! I think that overall it has worked (looking from the 1st century till the present), though never perfectly.

In the case of the AC it seems like after they ordained the first woman priest in the 40's, it was working to some degree - when some national churches and diocese were uncomfortable with it, they stopped until consensus could be reached.

But by the time the 70's came around, it seemed that something had gone wrong.

My thoughts on this are not very complete, but things that occur to me as possibilities to consider:

- they began to push issues down to too low a level, for example the ordination of women was left to the national churches, which was probably not feasible.

- the loss of a real understanding for Tradition, as something necessary to understand Scripture correctly and as having authority.

- related to that, a divergence in liturgical expression and the adoption of post-modern liturgy.

- also related, in at least some places like North America, an idea seemed to be adopted that the Church was a sort of continuing revelation rather than a deposit of faith or even a development of doctrine in the Catholic sense.

Something else that strikes me is the idea, which I first read in Orthodox circles, that it is the kind of single leader model that we see in the papacy that drives inappropriate or too-fast theological changes. While we don't have the papacy and on paper are closer to the Orthodox model, in practice that isn't really so. Effectively, in the bishops we seem to have many little popes. We don't have the type of vertical authority seen in Orthodox churches, where bishops who teach outside the faith are corrected by other bishops, or even the laity will refuse to accept the teachings of bishops if they do not seem to match the teachings of the faith (as in the council of Florence.)

And I wonder if this relates to the increasing tendency for power and resources to concentrate at higher levels - as we see in TEC in the office of the presiding bishop, or around bishops in individual diocese?

Some of that doesn't seem very recognisable to me (eg the supposed huge influence of individual bishops), and I wonder if it represents a particularly N American take on things.

I also wonder whether "when it went wrong" isn't liable to depend on what one sees as a wrong decision. For many the process surrounding ordination of women falls in the last big success, for others the first big disaster.

I would be interested to here some examples of big controversies that you think were appropriately resolved whenever you think the appropriate model was working.

 

[MKJ]

Some of that doesn't seem very recognisable to me (eg the supposed huge influence of individual bishops), and I wonder if it represents a particularly N American take on things.

I don't know if it is a North American thing. When I talk about increased power of individual bishops I am thinking of a few things. One is that bishops have in the past - and I am thinking here particularly before the rise of the power of the papacy - been more at the mercy of their flock. Bishops who taught incorrect doctrine were generally removed.

In the Anglican world bishops have been pretty much able to impose what they like on the laity, even if it is a substantial change from tradition, and they have not been subject to discipline from other bishops either. We have many bishops who teach things well outside of Anglican doctrine, but there never seems to have been any effort to remove them.

As far as what I think was a more recent example , I mentioned in another thread, I think when you were away, about the increase of administration and power around the office of bishops, and I gave my parish as an example, but it is typical. At one time the diocesan office was quite bare bones, including the bishop and a fairly minimal staff to help him do his job. Most of the assets of the diocese actually belonged to parishes. This is no longer the case - administratively there has been increasing centralization and the diocese now has a substantial staff. It also demands funds from parishes (where it used to disperse.) It has no official powers to do this - it enforces it's demands by refusing to appoint new rectors to parishes in arrears.

Additionally, in the newer prayer book in Canada (the BAS), the ordination service has rather stronger vows of obedience to the bishop as opposed to the Church, compared to the old one.

I tend to think that this kind of change in monetary and administrative power is often significant, even when it doesn't initially appear so.

My guess is that Anglicanism inherited a tendency to follow individual leaders or to give them too much power to interpret doctrine, from Rome.

I also wonder whether "when it went wrong" isn't liable to depend on what one sees as a wrong decision. For many the process surrounding ordination of women falls in the last big success, for others the first big disaster.

I would be interested to here some examples of big controversies that you think were appropriately resolved whenever you think the appropriate model was working.

Well, I don't really think the outcome is what makes the difference. More the evidence that it isn't actually working. I think that is pretty clear no matter what you think of the outcomes.

Big controversies? Well, what about all of the ecumenical councils? Since the Reformation? I'm not sure... I don't think I'd count the Elizabethan settlement. When I think of big controversies in Anglicanism, I don't think of a lot before the 20th century - Methodism, I guess, comes to mind.

As far as the 20th century ones - divorce, contraception, the ordination of women, and same-sex issues, have any of them been uniformly treated throughout the communion? Is there consensus on any of those things?

 

[ebia]

I don't know if it is a North American thing. When I talk about increased power of individual bishops I am thinking of a few things. One is that bishops have in the past - and I am thinking here particularly before the rise of the power of the papacy - been more at the mercy of their flock. Bishops who taught incorrect doctrine were generally removed.

In the Anglican world bishops have been pretty much able to impose what they like on the laity, even if it is a substantial change from tradition, and they have not been subject to discipline from other bishops either. We have many bishops who teach things well outside of Anglican doctrine, but there never seems to have been any effort to remove them.

When, since Cranmer, have Anglican laity ever had the means to remove bishops? Or other bishops to do so for that matter?

But my point was more about how influential a bishop's teaching is. Perhaps it's the much greater theological diversity of English dioceses, but nobody pays much attention to bishops as teachers there anyway. Likewise in Australia, Sydney excepted. Teaching bishops like Tom Wright stand out precisely because they are unexpected.

My guess is that Anglicanism inherited a tendency to follow individual leaders or to give them too much power to interpret doctrine, from Rome.

Initially that was certainly the case. But here and in England you don't see much listening to the bishop as authoritative teacher at all.

Well, I don't really think the outcome is what makes the difference. More the evidence that it isn't actually working. I think that is pretty clear no matter what you think of the outcomes.

Is it. Those who support women's ordination see that as process working. Those who don't as process failed.

Big controversies? Well, what about all of the ecumenical councils? Since the Reformation?

I'm asking about since the reformation Ie since the Anglican Church has been independent of Rome & Constantinople. What instances sunce Cranmer can you point to of your ideal process actually working? Or has it never existed in the CofE and Anglican Communuon.

 

[brevis]

I would like to be able to say something... but honestly I know next to nothing about the American church except what I gather around here. So let me say I will be praying; that's all I can do.

 

[MKJ]

When, since Cranmer, have Anglican laity ever had the means to remove bishops? Or other bishops to do so for that matter?

Well, the laity in earlier times didn't necessarily have an official capacity in this sense. However, you are right, there seems to have be no actual way for even other bishops to act to remove those teaching falsly.

But that is just the sort of thing that I think is a useful observation. Perhaps the root, or one of the roots, of the problem comes from a lack of accountability of bishops.

But my point was more about how influential a bishop's teaching is. Perhaps it's the much greater theological diversity of English dioceses, but nobody pays much attention to bishops as teachers there anyway. Likewise in Australia, Sydney excepted. Teaching bishops like Tom Wright stand out precisely because they are unexpected.


Initially that was certainly the case. But here and in England you don't see much listening to the bishop as authoritative teacher at all.

I disagree. Bishops don't have to be "teaching bishops" to be influential on what is being taught in their diocese. They have considerable say in vocations and appointing rectors of parishes, for example. They can choose to reign in a priest's teachings in parishes. They can allow various liturgies to be used or suppress others. If there is a theological college they can have significant influence there, which has a huge impact on the sort of priests that come out of the other end - I'd say this has been a major way bishops have been shaping their diocese in recent history.

Is it. Those who support women's ordination see that as process working. Those who don't as process failed.

I find it hard to imagine that any but the most myopic could fail to see that the AC at the moment is in real danger of dissolving over these issues. I think that counts as a failure at a higher level than not getting one's particular theological approach affirmed.

I'm asking about since the reformation Ie since the Anglican Church has been independent of Rome & Constantinople. What instances sunce Cranmer can you point to of your ideal process actually working? Or has it never existed in the CofE and Anglican Communuon.

I'm not sure, it may not have. If it hasn't, I think the question is why - we are set up structurally to use such a process. We can see where it has been attempted to be used, but without the success we might have expected. What are we missing from our version of the conciliar model? Is it something hierarchical, a theological principle required for it to work, or attitudes of individuals? Something else?

There have been lots of synods and Lambeth conferences and so on for many years. They must have been making some decisions. Were some on controversial subjects at the time but successfully resolved? Or was it ultimately personal use of power that resolved issues? I am not sure.

 

[mark46]

Women's ordination has been around for 40 years, with many decisions in support of this change at all levels. Many who disagree decided to leave their province and the Communion rather than go along with the decisions of the Church. Do you think that decisions haven't been made? No decision will please everyone after all.

BTW, I have been fascinated about this discussion that local bishops have too MUCH power. Of course, in the US, the suggestion is often that the Presiding Bishop and the national organizations have too much power, and the local bishops have too little power. IMHO, if the local bishops had more authority and power, Bishop Lawrence and the others would not have been kicked out or forced out of TEC and out of the Communion. Or, alternatively, if the local bishops had more power, perhaps they would have been brought TEC and the Communion to its knees decades ago.

The Anglican Communion is in paralysis. Anglicanism in the US is simply many, many schismatic churches plus the TEC that they have been attempting to destroy for almost 50 years. IMHO, it was not the ordination of women and homosexuals in the 70's that has crippled TEC. It is the lack of acceptance of those decisions and the walking out by so-called traditionalists that have been much more problematic. IMHO, the true heretics are a small minority and would have marginalized long ago had the so-called traditionalists stayed in the Communion.

I find it hard to imagine that any but the most myopic could fail to see that the AC at the moment is in real danger of dissolving over these issues. I think that counts as a failure at a higher level than not getting one's particular theological approach affirmed.

There have been lots of synods and Lambeth conferences and so on for many years. They must have been making some decisions. Were some on controversial subjects at the time but successfully resolved? Or was it ultimately personal use of power that resolved issues? I am not sure.

 

[MKJ]

Women's ordination has been around for 40 years, with many decisions in support of this change at all levels. Many who disagree decided to leave their province and the Communion rather than go along with the decisions of the Church. Do you think that decisions haven't been made? No decision will please everyone after all.

BTW, I have been fascinated about this discussion that local bishops have too MUCH power. Of course, in the US, the suggestion is often that the Presiding Bishop and the national organizations have too much power, and the local bishops have too little power. IMHO, if the local bishops had more authority and power, Bishop Lawrence and the others would not have been kicked out or forced out of TEC and out of the Communion. Or, alternatively, if the local bishops had more power, perhaps they would have been brought TEC and the Communion to its knees decades ago.

The Anglican Communion is in paralysis. Anglicanism in the US is simply many, many schismatic churches plus the TEC that they have been attempting to destroy for almost 50 years. IMHO, it was not the ordination of women and homosexuals in the 70's that has crippled TEC. It is the lack of acceptance of those decisions and the walking out by so-called traditionalists that have been much more problematic. IMHO, the true heretics are a small minority and would have marginalized long ago had the so-called traditionalists stayed in the Communion.

Women's ordination is not accepted in every parish or part of the Communion. And it was approached as something national churches could decide, which is frankly bizarre theologically speaking, in an apostolic church.

And you seem to have missed my point about the current state of the AC. I would think you of all people would have a clear view that something has gone seriously wrong. Women's ordination is one small part of a larger set of issues that have been moved on with no rational coherence or in many cases no real theological exploration, or using mutually contradictory theological approaches.

Observing that local bishops have been accruing a particular sort of power in no way negates the idea that national bishops may have been doing the same thing. They are not mutually exclusive propositions. Power can be held and exercised in different ways, for one thing. And I would suggest that both of things have developed against other sorts of power and hierarchy that have been diminished - perhaps the horizontal power of the members of the laity or the horizontal powers among bishops or other national churches. And maybe against what Chesterton talked about as the democracy of the dead - that is against the role of Tradition.

 

[Episcoboi]

Women's ordination is not accepted in every parish or part of the Communion. And it was approached as something national churches could decide, which is frankly bizarre theologically speaking, in an apostolic church.

And you seem to have missed my point about the current state of the AC. I would think you of all people would have a clear view that something has gone seriously wrong. Women's ordination is one small part of a larger set of issues that have been moved on with no rational coherence or in many cases no real theological exploration, or using mutually contradictory theological approaches.

Observing that local bishops have been accruing a particular sort of power in no way negates the idea that national bishops may have been doing the same thing. They are not mutually exclusive propositions. Power can be held and exercised in different ways, for one thing. And I would suggest that both of things have developed against other sorts of power and hierarchy that have been diminished - perhaps the horizontal power of the members of the laity or the horizontal powers among bishops or other national churches. And maybe against what Chesterton talked about as the democracy of the dead - that is against the role of Tradition.

I think the root of the problem...Going back several decades, is that the laity is not, and hasn't been for a long time, engaged in the church as a whole. Most of us sit comfortably in our pews on Sunday, watch our clocks if the service lasts more than an hour, and give no other thought to what's going on...That is until the crud hits the proverbial fan, and there is a situation like this.

I really firmly believe that if the laity as a whole was more involved at the parish, diocesan, and national levels things would be different. As it is though, only a very small proportion of our laity are very involved in the life of the church and so the rest of us sit by and let things happen. Only expressing our indignation after the fact by either leaving or railing against the decisions...

I'm not trying to lay the blame squarely on the laity, but a lot would be different of we (myself included) took a more active role in the life of the church (even the political life).

 

[ebia]

Observing that local bishops have been accruing a particular sort of power in no way negates the idea that national bishops may have been doing the same thing. They are not mutually exclusive propositions. Power can be held and exercised in different ways, for one thing. And I would suggest that both of things have developed against other sorts of power and hierarchy that have been diminished - perhaps the horizontal power of the members of the laity or the horizontal powers among bishops or other national churches.

In most of the Communion lay power at all is either a very recent thing (or in much of Africa say, still non-existent). One could, I suspect, find a strong correlation between the rise of synodical governance and the breakdown in relationships. And in what period of Anglican thinking has there been much inter-bishop power?

You seem to be mourning a structure that has never existed in the Anglican Church.

 

[mark46]

Again you raise the issue of women's ordination to a level it does not deserve. The Church made its decision: women's ordination is acceptable but not to be forced on the provinces.

The Church decided that this was a pastoral issue for provinces to decide. I understand that some would like more definitive actions from our instruments. And so they will have if any issues come before it where actual heresy is involved. If TEC truly taught that the Resurrection wasn't a historical event, or if a church body taught that bishops were no longer necessary, then perhaps the Communion should take more definitive action.

Women's ordination is not accepted in every parish or part of the Communion. And it was approached as something national churches could decide, which is frankly bizarre theologically speaking, in an apostolic church.

And you seem to have missed my point about the current state of the AC. I would think you of all people would have a clear view that something has gone seriously wrong. Women's ordination is one small part of a larger set of issues that have been moved on with no rational coherence or in many cases no real theological exploration, or using mutually contradictory theological approaches.

Observing that local bishops have been accruing a particular sort of power in no way negates the idea that national bishops may have been doing the same thing. They are not mutually exclusive propositions. Power can be held and exercised in different ways, for one thing. And I would suggest that both of things have developed against other sorts of power and hierarchy that have been diminished - perhaps the horizontal power of the members of the laity or the horizontal powers among bishops or other national churches. And maybe against what Chesterton talked about as the democracy of the dead - that is against the role of Tradition.

 

[Adam Warlock]

It's against the rules to come in here and insult Anglicans.

 

[DariusArcturus]

Foolish.

Better to seem foolish to a grouch than to be a genuine curmudgeon.

I've heard people accuse TEC of being too liberal, too Catholic, too Protestant, and "too" a lot of other stuff, but it tends to miss the point that TEC is big on the Via Media. We're stuck astride Protestantism and Catholicism by design.

Life happens. Bishops make all sorts of crazy decisions. Arguments are had.

But that isn't all too much different since the birth of Christianity, either. A good chunk of the Epistles are made up of bickering, if you think about it. And so here we are.

 

[DariusArcturus]

(And yes, as a point of order, Adam has a very valid observation.)

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

When I was Anglican, I loved +Lawrence. Still think he's a great guy!

It's against the rules to come in here and insult Anglicans.