I post this article in full as I think it may add some clarity to the current debate within ‘conservative’ Anglicanism.
Written by: The Rev. Charles D. Alley, Ph.D.
Friday, November 28th, 2008The terms “inside and outside strategies” have been bantered about the blogosphere and the print media with a bit of abandon. Such a nomenclature assumes that those forming a new province in North America and those remaining in TEC are working toward the same goal in two different manners. As with all assumptions, no clear understanding can be realized without clarity of what exactly it is that is being assumed. In short, the question we must honestly answer is whether we do indeed have the same goal in mind. I would submit that the answer is, “No.”
From my early experience with the AAC, and later the Network, the goal was clearly nothing short of reforming TEC. That is a noble goal and, when recognized as one’s vocation, should be pursued without reservation. Such a goal also demands periodic progress checks and adjustment of strategies in order to keep the goal viable in the face of changing circumstances. Ultimately, when the institution proves to be incapable of reformation, the only choice is to separate and attempt to influence the situation by parallel development. What I mean by parallel development is that an alternative institutional model is developed which will succeed where the former model fails, and thereby, ultimately replace it. Hence, the formation of a new province in North American Anglicanism is a natural result of the attempt to reform TEC.
Such a strategy is incoherent for those who have as their vocation the call to remain in TEC. It is not that the members of this group are against the formation of a new province, or doubt the sincerity of those forming it, but rather it is not a logical alternative for those who have a call to stay. Perhaps the difference lies in the goal to which they are called. Some conservative voices do not see as their vocation the reformation of TEC. Rather, the call is recognized as to stand as a witness to the truth in the midst of the theological chaos. They are called simply to be the Church and provide an alternative model of doing church within TEC. In this way these parishes can provide a witness to what the Church is meant to be so that TEC might have the opportunity to see what it has become.
The brewing conflict between Common Cause Partners and Communion Partner Bishops and Rectors is the result of a lack of communication between the two groups. The former group has not heard the Communion Partners’ articulation of their call, which is to remain in TEC as a witness. The assumption has been that they have the mutual goal of reforming the church. Because of this assumption, it has been widely stated that the Communion Partners Plan is a “non-starter,” or that the Communion Partners will have “no alternative” but to join the new province once it is formed. When one substitutes the goal of being a witness for that of reforming the church, it becomes obvious that joining a new province is not an alternative at all. In fact, joining a new province would be an act of disobedience for those who are called by God to remain as a witness.
What is needed above all else is the spirit of charity. Those who are called to remain in TEC need to acknowledge and honor the call of those who are called to leave and form a new entity. Likewise, the reformers need to refrain from making assumptions about those who are called to be a witness and respect their chosen path of obedience. Although our ecclesiological goals may be different, our ultimate goal is the same; to proclaim the Gospel in whatever circumstance we find ourselves. May we be united in our mutual ministry and supportive of one another as we manifest our obedience along the distinct paths to which we are called.
The Rev. Charles D. Alley, Ph.D.
Advisory Board
Communion Partner Rectors
Compared to some recent ACI articles, this is much more gracious in tone and hopefully a real step forward in understanding. It is helpful for the ACI to clarify that its goal is not one of reforming TEC from within, but rather of acting as a prophetic witness within that body.
I had, erroneously, assumed that one of the intentions was indeed to reform TEC. So, to put it in our familiar shipping terminology, the intention seems to be not to seek to repair the hole/s in the ship, but to witness to the folly of those who are adding to the damage and perhaps to wake some who are still slumbering?
Is that how you read it? If so, it certainly can be seen as an honourable calling. However, it is a different calling than perhaps some of us had understood.
What I would like to ask, particularly to those with a more ‘Federation’ perspective, is whether you have the same understanding of the goal as ACI? Is Federation seeking to witness to the ACoC, or is it seeking to reform the ACoC from within? Or perhaps more complex than that?
A word of warning. I’m aware it’s risky for one who does not want to see rancour within the Essentials family to post this kind of article! However, I think it is important enough that it deserves an airing. So, this is not an opportunity for Federation or ANiC bashing, but one where I hope we can add a bit of clarity in these less than clear times. Please be charitable in your comments, thank you.
UPDATE: Brad Drell, one of the ‘insiders’ in TEC, is not overly impressed.
Church is supposed to be a spiritually safe place. It is supposed to be a community where we uphold each other, and learn, and equip ourselves to be light to the world. We shouldn’t have to be a witness within the church – we should be able to be assured that the leaders in church on Sunday really are our brothers and sisters in Christ. The whole concept of having to witness to the Gospel to people in our own faith community who are already calling themselves leaders of the brothers and sisters is just deeply wrong.
Didn’t Jeremiah and Jesus have to do that witnessing within?
Perhaps this somehow applies ?
Hebrews 5:12,13
You have been believers so long now that you ought to be teaching others. Instead, you need someone to teach you again the basic things about God’s word.* You are like babies who need milk and cannot eat solid food. For someone who lives on milk is still an infant and doesn’t know how to do what is right.
Maybe I am not expressing myself very well. I am still trying to put my finger on what is bugging me about this – I will have to think on it some more.
Ann (#3): I think that the situation described in Hebrews is close, but not quite the same: Paul (or whoever else you wish to name as the author of Hebrews) is writing to what I would call the Best of the Liberal Churches: I imagine that such churches were doing good to the poor and needy and providing a safe environment for its members, much like a good social club, but giving low priority to the Word of God.
Like the “Hebrews” churches, the liberal churches today are ignoring the Word, but what is worse, they are antagonistic towards it, to the extent of ostracizing members who want to hold bible studies or forbidding clergy to be part of the Essentials movement.
Kate (#1), the situation is much a Gene suggests which I would call a Mission situation. And this is not an easy form of missionary work, to be within the structure of apparent believers.
Those of us in ANiC must pray that not that those in the Federation would “see the light”, but that they would “be the light”.
Gene (#2), Jesus was much more than a witness, he was the fulfillment of prophecy; others were a witness to him. Jeremiah was a prophet and had to witness from within – he couldn’t change his genes. I suspect he was treated as an outcast, however, by most of his countrymen.
Jack (#5), maybe the current demographics are such that there are mostly adults remaining in ACoC parishes, but my heart breaks for children and youth who are regularly exposed to false teaching in an environment where they should be able to implicitly trust what they are hearing. It is not fair to expect them to be a light within such an environment; rather they themselves need to be guided in the truth. I hope that Ephesians 6:4, in view of many other verses concerning the spiritual nurture of children, is the focus of much meditation and prayer by parents who choose to remain.
The problem with the idea that the orthodox are staying in the ACoC to reform it, is that there has been no success in that endeavour during the last 50 years; in fact the reverse has occurred. Short of a sovereign act of God, I can’t see how more of the same will do any good.
Staying in order to witness to those in the ACoC has its own problems.
I believe William Temple was right when he said “The Church is the only society that exists for the benefit of those who are not its members”. I really don’t think we are called to be salt and light in our own church, but in the world – the assumption being that the Church is already salt and light. If it isn’t, then I think Matt 5:13 would apply. To choose to stay in the ACoC as a witness is, I believe, a mistake (note I said ‘choose’ – I am not referring to those who stay because there is no alternative); there is a vast harvest of lost souls in our society who need to hear the Gospel – and most of them have not heard it. I fear that the heretical leaders in the ACoC have heard the Gospel and rejected it.
To point to an anecdotal illustration of the problem: someone in the ANiC synod said: it is good to be in a synod and be able to act like a Christian without having to look over your shoulder. The orthodox who choose to remain a part of the ACoC will waste much of the energy that is meant for making disciples by constantly having to ‘look over their shoulders’ to see who, in their own church, is watching them act like a Christian. The time has come to say, ‘enough’ and get on with the great commission.
Warren #6:
Yes, Jesus was much more than a witness, but it seems to me that his job as fulfiller of prophecy was to stay within the structure and submit to the authorities even though he didn’t want to (“take this cup from me”) and they were wrong. It seems to me that even though staying isn’t going to reform the church or be any kind of measurably influential witness within, staying is still something some are called to do.
At risk of being melodramatic, I’m sure there were some who told the people in the Alamo that they were wasting their time and their lives, they couldn’t possibly win.
Gene (#8), if you’ve read my comments here, you know I tend towards cynicism. I believe in the leading of the Holy Spirit, but, when you say that “staying is still something some are called to do”, what do you really mean? Are some people hearing a still small voice telling them to stay, or feel a burning in their bosom, while others are hearing a voice telling them to leave? Maybe I was jaded by my Pentecostal upbringing, but I believe that one must first look to the clear word of Scripture.
Although He disappointed His followers by not overthrowing it, Jesus didn’t exactly stay within “the structure”. Much of His ministry involved proclaiming the kingdom of God. It just wasn’t the sort of kingdom His followers were expecting.
Warren (#8)
But what a vast mission field for the faithful still in the ACoC!!
As a wise colleague explained years ago, “Where else, but in an Anglican Church can you describe the Sunday gathering of the congregation as a multi-faith service!”
Jack (#10),
Why do you think that is? I have my opinion (as usual), but I’m interested in yours.
Warren (#10)
Because the liberalism in the church ignores the clear words of scripture, but instead says that all ways to God are fine (except, of course, the orthodox conservative ways). The results are that we have Anglicans of all faiths, sometimes even Christian.
And don’t forget the restrictive rules for membership which are usually that you have been christened, that you appear at the church 3 times per year and that you have collection envelopes.
Jack (#13), I didn’t realize the membership requirements were that onerous. Of course, I was once part of a Baptist church that was finally getting around to removing people from the membership role that had been dead 15-20 years.
Warren (#13): Brilliant idea (to include the heavenly host in the church membership)!!!.
Unfortunately the synods of the ACoC have enhanced that idea: Since every congregation can send at least two delegates to synod regardless of the size of the congregation and there is a cap on the maximum number of delegates for large congregations (at least in New West there is), the Dead Churches get much larger representation at synod than the Live Churches.
(As an aid to understanding Dead Churches, please see the Dec. 1 article posted by Kate.)
Jack (#14) Valid point. However, don’t forget that many small churches are very much alive, very conservative but happen to be located in small and isolated communities. We conservatives rely on their representation at our synods in the north.
Not sure that I am completely comfortable with this delegate and voting thing at Synod. When did Church become a democracy. It’s not like the government where we can replace the Prime Minister if we decide we no longer like the buy who currently has the job. We can’t change or replace God. And voting on who will become our Bishops has obviously led ACoC to elect Bishops on more secular criteria than Spiritual. It seems to me to be somewhat like having the students and faculty vote on who shall be the school principal. There MUST be a better way for the Church!
One is appalled at the pessimism, the cynicism and the presumption (the Psalms ask for forgiveness of presumptious sins) and the wide stroke of tarring of all those who are still within the ACoC with the same brush.
May this witness teach us grace.
Being part of a Church where in the Bishop’s last visit we had Infant Baptism, Adult Baptism, renewal of vows by Anglicans who had returned to the faith, welcoming of those from other denominations, and receiving those who had newly found faith from being non-Christians and asked for Baptism, and Confirmation, it makes me sad that fellow Orthodox should presume a paralysis of all faithful ministry by the faithful still within the ACoC.
Besides this, there is faithful ministry going on to those of other faiths Muslim, Buddhist and Hindu. Some of whom have become faithful and active members of the Church.
Because of the powerful ministry of the faithful, an extra Baptismal service had to be accomodated in which
seventeen children and adults were Baptised.
Ours is not the only vibrant church, we know of others
besides us as well.
It’s with the tongue we either bless or curse. May the
tongues that receive Holy things pronounce blessings rather than curses.
We are not lukewarm, our presence is felt and our stand is known to the liberal leadership.
May you be encouraged by this.
“He came to pay a debt He didn’t owe
because we owed a debt we couldn’t pay.”
A very blessed Christmas to you all.
Please be specific if you are going to make such an accusation. Most people have gone to great pains to say, again and again, that it is the organization of the ACoC that we think is apostate, not necessarily the individual churches within it. Is it really necessary to repeat that every time we call into question something that the ACoC has done?
Kate # 18
Point taken. However, there have been many
negative comments about those who have not left
yet.
The above is just to edify.
Blessings.