Some rather bracing comments from the secretary general of the ACC

[Paidiske]

ACC-17: GAFCON are not behaving as Anglicans, says Idowu-Fearon

It's worth listening to the whole speech, but I thought the suggestion that it's wilful ignorance dividing the communion was at least potentially worth discussing.

 

[Peter J Barban]

As a non-Anglican, let me just mention that calls for civility are often just a tactic to get the other side of a conflict to unilaterally disarm themselves.

The test of integrity is if the side calling for civility is actually consistently modeling civility to their opponents.

Civility isn't really a biblical term, so I am suspicious why it is being used here.

 

[FireDragon76]

@Paidiske, why are churches in the Anglican communion referred to as "Provinces". Is there no understanding of the concept of autocephaly? It seems to be the case that there is, but the assumption of the ecclessiology at play seems to be that somehow the Anglican Communion is in a hierarchy of sorts above individual provinces, and provinces don't have the dignity of being called actual churches. So consequently, intrusions by other provinces aren't even seen as what they actually are- hostile missionary and proselytism efforts by rival churches.

 

[Paidiske]

@Paidiske, why are churches in the Anglican communion referred to as "Provinces". Is there no understanding of the concept of autocephaly? It seems to be the case that there is, but the assumption of the ecclessiology at play seems to be that somehow the Anglican Communion is in a hierarchy of sorts above individual provinces, and provinces don't have the dignity of being called actual churches. So consequently, intrusions by other provinces aren't even seen as what they actually are- hostile missionary and proselytism efforts by rival churches.

Recent Anglican history is not actually my strongest area of expertise, and I'd have to do some research to give you a very full answer. I think it would be fair to say that "autocephaly," as it is used in, say, Orthodox understanding, is not exactly the same thing as how Anglicans understand the relationship between provinces.

I wouldn't say that the Anglican communion is a hierarchy, exactly, but that it is supposed to bind the provinces together. I would not call each province a "church" in its own right, but see the global communion as one church.

 

[FireDragon76]

Recent Anglican history is not actually my strongest area of expertise, and I'd have to do some research to give you a very full answer. I think it would be fair to say that "autocephaly," as it is used in, say, Orthodox understanding, is not exactly the same thing as how Anglicans understand the relationship between provinces.

I wouldn't say that the Anglican communion is a hierarchy, exactly, but that it is supposed to bind the provinces together. I would not call each province a "church" in its own right, but see the global communion as one church.

That sounds a bit like Roman Catholicism. Perhaps its like a Zen koan- "What is a Pope but not a Pope?" It sounds like a wonderful object of contemplation but not necessarily very practical.

Most American Episcopalians I have interacted with seem to believe their church is autonomous and doesn't need the permission of other provinces in the Anglican communion. So I would not be surprised if alot of these sorts of issues are due to Anglican ecclessiology being still relatively unclear.

 

[Paidiske]

That sounds a bit like Roman Catholicism. Perhaps its like a Zen koan- "What is a Pope but not a Pope?" It doesn't exactly inspire clear thinking, IMO.

If Roman Catholicism let each province have its own constitution, etc, maybe. And genuinely synodical governance, including laity.

Sorry, but I don't think you can deal with Anglicanism by trying to peg us against other denominations. Our governance is unique and needs to be dealt with on its own terms.

Most American Episcopalians I have interacted with seem to believe their church is autonomous and doesn't need the permission of other provinces in the Anglican communion.

Yes, I see that attitude from Americans. That has certainly contributed to the current tension.

And we are autonomous, but autonomy doesn't mean one should disregard others with whom you are in binding relationships, either.

 

[FireDragon76]

If Roman Catholicism let each province have its own constitution, etc, maybe. And genuinely synodical governance, including laity.

I don't think all Anglican provinces have the same degree of lay participation . I know the Episcpalians in the US are very similar to my own denomination (ELCA), whereas I have read that some Anglicans overseas have different structures. Do you have any input on this? I have heard complaints before from Episcopalians that other churches simply don't respect their democratic norms and are used to more authoritarian, centralized approaches.

Yes, I see that attitude from Americans. That has certainly contributed to the current tension.

I know several cradle or long time Episcopalians and it's not like they are setting out to be rebels, mind you. They just have an identity that is distinctly Episcopalian. At most, they might pray for the Archbishop of Canterbury in the litany but they don't think of themselves as part of the British commonwealth in any way like that. In fact the two Episcopalians I know most well are not even Anglo-American (one is of German ancestry, the other is from Venezuela).

BTW, this book might be very interesting for you, it's a sociologist's look at American religion. His observation of Episcopalians matches up some of my experiences. They are really very unique, and I could see why there could be tensions within Anglicanism as a result:

https://www.amazon.com/Americans-Re...icans+believe&qid=1556712087&s=gateway&sr=8-1

In many ways, Episcopalians are very different even from my own religion. Professor Starke says Lutherans score the lowest in reports of spiritual experiences, whereas Episcopalians are relatively high, for instance. Episcopalians are also prone to a great deal of divergent thinking, being the most likely to have belief in things traditionally considered non-Christian. The Episcopalians I know all have a bit of a hippy vibe and like labrynths, prayer beads, and self-proclaimed "Celtic" spirituality. I don't say that as a put-down necessarily, but to point out their ethos is not like the dogmatic kind who thinks that the 16th century got everything right in terms of religion.

And we are autonomous, but autonomy doesn't mean one should disregard others with whom you are in binding relationships, either.

There is a distinction between obligation and love, though. I am sure you are aware enough of how people can use presumably loving relationships to manipulate people through a sense of obligation? Some in the Anglican community might see this sort of enforced uniformity as a sign of love for truth, but the world will just see a religion doing what religion does- enforcing rules on other people.

 

[Paidiske]

I don't think all Anglican provinces have the same degree of lay participation . I know the Episcpalians in the US are very similar to my own denomination (ELCA), whereas I have read that some Anglicans overseas have different structures. Do you have any input on this? I have heard complaints before from Episcopalians that other churches simply don't respect their democratic norms and are used to more authoritarian, centralized approaches.

I haven't taken a survey. All of the provinces with which I'm familiar have synodical governance and a high level of lay involvement.

I am aware that Episcopalians go further than we do in terms of things like electing suffragan bishops (where here those are appointed by the Archbishop) but that's a relatively small difference in the grand scheme of things.

I know several cradle or long time Episcopalians and it's not like they are setting out to be rebels, mind you. They just have an identity that is distinctly Episcopalian. At most, they might pray for the Archbishop of Canterbury in the litany but they don't think of themselves as part of the British commonwealth in any way like that. In fact the two Episcopalians I know most well are not even Anglo-American (one is of German ancestry, the other is from Venezuela).

Being part of the Anglican communion is not the same as being part of the commonwealth. And I agree, they don't set out to be rebels... but nor do they take the rest of the communion into account in their decision making in a way that I think is normative for most provinces.

In many ways, Episcopalians are very different even from my own religion. Professor Starke says Lutherans score the lowest in reports of spiritual experiences, whereas Episcopalians are relatively high, for instance. Episcopalians are also prone to a great deal of divergent thinking, being the most likely to have belief in things traditionally considered non-Christian. The Episcopalians I know all have a bit of a hippy vibe and like labrynths, prayer beads, and self-proclaimed "Celtic" spirituality. I don't say that as a put-down necessarily, but to point out their ethos is not like the dogmatic kind who thinks that the 16th century got everything right in terms of religion.

Certainly Episcopalians have moved further from historic Anglican norms than many provinces (I was shocked to discover that their clergy aren't required to assent to the Articles, for example). You'll find plenty of labyrinths, prayer beads, "Celtic" enthusiasm and the like elsewhere, and openness to development (or we wouldn't have a global communion). But they do seem to embody some American enthusiasms - like individuality and independence - to a rather strong degree also. And I'll be glad if some of them chime in and I don't feel like the two of us are discussing "them" without them even participating.

There is a distinction between law and love, though. I am sure you are aware enough of how people can use presumably loving relationships to manipulate people?

Either being part of the same church - in the same web of relationship - means something, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, why bother?

And here's the thing; the discussion in the linked article is really mostly about how people have reacted against Episcopalian decisions and peculiarities (which is where GAFCON got going, as a reactionary movement). And while I don't think GAFCON chose an appropriate reaction, either, part of the question might have to be, what would have been an appropriate reaction?

 

[FireDragon76]

I haven't taken a survey. All of the provinces with which I'm familiar have synodical governance and a high level of lay involvement.

I am aware that Episcopalians go further than we do in terms of things like electing suffragan bishops (where here those are appointed by the Archbishop) but that's a relatively small difference in the grand scheme of things.



Being part of the Anglican communion is not the same as being part of the commonwealth. And I agree, they don't set out to be rebels... but nor do they take the rest of the communion into account in their decision making in a way that I think is normative for most provinces.



Certainly Episcopalians have moved further from historic Anglican norms than many provinces (I was shocked to discover that their clergy aren't required to assent to the Articles, for example). You'll find plenty of labyrinths, prayer beads, "Celtic" enthusiasm and the like elsewhere, and openness to development (or we wouldn't have a global communion). But they do seem to embody some American enthusiasms - like individuality and independence - to a rather strong degree also. And I'll be glad if some of them chime in and I don't feel like the two of us are discussing "them" without them even participating.

Yes, I'm definitely not against that. It's just in my experience Episcopalians on this forum often end up feeling besieged and their voice minimized (so why bother?). I just think they aren't appreciated for what they are often times, there's a sense in these discussions that they are somehow inherently problematic, instead of recognizing that Christianity has different cultural expressions possible.

Either being part of the same church - in the same web of relationship - means something, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, why bother?

That sort of all or nothing approach seems part of the problem, frankly. I think many descendents of British evangelicals are hobbled by a lack of appreciation of the simul in Luther's simul iustus et peccator, frankly. "Relationship" is much bandied about now days as an ethical ideal, but there is seldom an acknowledgement of human finitude and limitations, what we would traditionally call "sin" of fallenness. There's alot of over-confidence in religion's ability to transform people into an ideal state, and not much of an appreciation for something like Reinhold Niebhur's "Christian Realism", where life is understood in tragic and pessimistic terms.

And while I don't think GAFCON chose an appropriate reaction, either, part of the question might have to be, what would have been an appropriate reaction?

No, I don't think its appropriate, either. I think there's alot of arrogance on many in the Global South to think they know how to pastor Americans better than Americans themselves. That's not consistent with love as I would understand it, but it is consistent with both fundamentalist religion and also premodern, non-western approaches to decision-making

I honestly believe in religious freedom, though, and it's not so much about African bishops supporting renegade churches in the US... I get that people need to be pastoral. But attacking the legitimacy of other churches isn't at all a loving approach. The world will not see the love of Jesus in that approach, they will just see ugly religion.

 

[Paidiske]

I am not sure that I'd consider myself to be a descendent of British evangelicals, exactly...

I think I have posted something along these lines in another thread, but part of what shapes how we perceive this is our own local context. Australia has a small population, a highly secular population, and Anglicanism - while the second largest church here, behind the Catholics - in absolute numbers is very small. Australian Anglicanism is heavily dependent on global Anglicanism (as well as other denominations) in all sorts of ways, from having to import books, to drawing on resources developed overseas, and so on. I buy my clerical wear from England because I can't get what I need locally. We can't afford the luxury of the illusion that we can stand alone. We simply don't have the critical mass.

My sense is that this is less true in America, and that probably shapes their sense of how much they "need" the rest of us.

 

[FireDragon76]

I am not sure that I'd consider myself to be a descendent of British evangelicals, exactly...

I think I have posted something along these lines in another thread, but part of what shapes how we perceive this is our own local context. Australia has a small population, a highly secular population, and Anglicanism - while the second largest church here, behind the Catholics - in absolute numbers is very small. Australian Anglicanism is heavily dependent on global Anglicanism (as well as other denominations) in all sorts of ways, from having to import books, to drawing on resources developed overseas, and so on. I buy my clerical wear from England because I can't get what I need locally. We can't afford the luxury of the illusion that we can stand alone. We simply don't have the critical mass.

My sense is that this is less true in America, and that probably shapes their sense of how much they "need" the rest of us.

It sounds like in your own way, Anglicans in Australia also can feel isolated and besieged. I can see why it might be tempting to form alliances with reactionary voices potentially, as a result, in the same way that many Episcopalians in the US feel allured towards radical voices, who seems to get alot of fuel for their cause from the fear and resentment of the sort of religion that GAFCON advocates. America really already has that sort of religion in spades, after all, and Episcopalians often feel like they are a fighting it just to maintain a sense of their own mission in the world.

 

[Paidiske]

Well, don't forget, we also have to live with the diocese of Sydney...

 

[Albion]

I am confident that retreading the ole demand for members to "pay up and shut up" is not likely to accomplish anything. Actually responding to the grievances of the GAFCON people might...but the organization is apparently never going to do that.

 

[FireDragon76]

I have no horse in this (ACC) race, but I am confident that retreading the ole demand for members to pay up and shut up are not likely to accomplish anything.

Well, it's not exactly polite, to say nothing of not being wise, to bite the hand that feeds you.

 

[Albion]

Well, it's not exactly polite, to say nothing of not being wise, to bite the hand that feeds you.

Bribes is the word there.

"In addition, if you are not a member of this faith group, you may not debate issues...." (from the House Rules of the forum)

 

[FireDragon76]

Well, don't forget, we also have to live with the diocese of Sydney...

Lutherans have our own "Churches within churches" like this, it's just I think our sense of identity isn't as bothered by them as much.

 

[PloverWing]

And I'll be glad if some of them chime in and I don't feel like the two of us are discussing "them" without them even participating.

It's usefully educational, actually, to see how American Episcopalians are perceived by others.

I think @Paidiske is correct that we don't feel the same kind of dependence on the global Anglican Communion that some other churches do. We do see ourselves as members of a global community, and we're trying to be collegial and respect the Anglicans in other national churches, and it's painful to watch the Communion split. But we're not dependent on them in the same way that (I gather) the Australian church is; we have a comfortable number of publishing houses and supply houses and seminaries and home-grown theologians, and if we end up getting expelled from the Communion, we'll survive. (The situation was much different in 1776, when we almost went extinct.) The biggest temptation that comes from this abundance of resources is that we can get too full of ourselves, and that's something to guard against.

What the sexuality issue looks like, on the American end, is that we are torn between two moral imperatives that are both important to us: 1) We are called to embrace those whom society rejects. "Will you seek and serve Christ in all persons, loving your neighbor as yourself? I will, with God's help." And, 2) We are called to be in Christian community -- not just a theoretical set of Christian people, but an actual community of flawed and faithful Christian people. Right now, I don't know how to do both of those. We see a large portion of the Anglican Communion as pressuring us to do #2 at the expense of #1.

In the mix, I think, is an American tendency to impatience. The Catholic Church took almost 500 years to mull over Martin Luther's proposal for liturgy in the vernacular before they decided it was a good idea. 500 years from now, the Anglican Communion will probably have decided whether same-sex unions are a good idea or not. But Americans don't want to wait 500 years. Our entire country isn't 500 years old. We want a solution now. That can be both good and bad.

 

[PloverWing]

A side note, something that came up as I was looking up facts for the previous post. I almost referred to the Australian church as a "smaller" church than the American one, and then I checked my numbers. 3.1 million Anglicans in Australia, and 3 million Episcopalians in the US. Your church has more members, in absolute numbers, and a much higher percentage of the population. So, to Paidiske in particular: Any idea why the Australian church seems to be more dependent on global church resources than the American church is? What's different in our history and culture?

 

[Albion]

A side note, something that came up as I was looking up facts for the previous post. I almost referred to the Australian church as a "smaller" church than the American one, and then I checked my numbers. 3.1 million Anglicans in Australia, and 3 million Episcopalians in the US.

1.8 million is more like it.
Membership and Average Sunday Attendence

 

[Albion]

One reason is that Australia remains, even today, part of the British Commonwealth. In America, by comparison, the church was lucky not to have winked out altogether, so much was it associated in the popular mind with the Crown and with Loyalists at the time of the American Revolution.