Thoughtful Response to ACI Paper
Feb 18th, 2009 by Kate
From the ANiC website.
An Open Response to “Patient Endurance – On Living Faithfully in a Time of Troubles”
Dear Philip, Christopher and Ephraim:
I greatly appreciate your contribution on the subject of how to remain faithful in these times of challenge for the Anglican churches in North America. It is an urgent and a challenging subject. This response is not intended as a refutation,, but rather as an attempt to contribute critically to some of the issues raised by your essay. I write, not from the perspective of a theologian – professional or otherwise – but as a committed follower of Jesus Christ and as a lifelong Anglican layman with church roots that go back for many generations. As a Canadian, I am responding with particular reference to the situation in my own country, but I believe that these comments may also be relevant to many Americans and to believers from other parts of the “Old West” as well. At this stage, I continue as a member of the Anglican Church of Canada, but I now face a pressing and a practical dilemma. To what part of the Anglican Church will I belong?
There are two issues that concern me about the assumptions that underlie your comments. The first has to do with your critique of the formation of the new Province of North America. The second has to do with the nature of the challenge facing those who choose to remain within those Provinces that you have characterized as being well advanced down the road to “liturgical and even doctrinal Unitarianism”.
The Bride of Christ and the Structures of the ChurchOne of the most profound developments in the history of the Church over the past century – and one that has often been overlooked - has been the gradual crumbling of the “Christendom” arrangement that originated with the Emperor Constantine and endured in one form or another from the Fourth Century until very recently. Under this arrangement, the Church functioned as a pillar of the State by legitimizing the State’s authority and by stabilizing its society, in return for State support of the Church’s institutions and hegemony. Inevitably this long association had profound implications for the perspectives and the structures of the Church. Jesus told Pilate “My kingdom is not of this world”, but in the sanctuary of a Christendom church, the State flag has become as familiar as the Cross. It can be argued that Anglicanism provides one of the very clearest historic examples of this harnessing of the church by the secular state. It can also be argued that our denomination’s Christendom “hangover” is therefore especially severe.
Today, Christianity is regarded by most secular authorities in the world as outmoded, irrelevant, or outright subversive. Christians who actually believe the historic gospel are seen as either dreamers or troublemakers. It is clear by now that this change is not a temporary aberration. Even though its full impact cannot yet be comprehended, the ongoing and longer term implications are enormous. They require the re-evaluation of the role, the structures and the cultural implications of the visible Church and of our understanding of its relationship to the Bride of Christ. Most of all they require us to return to the words of the Author and Head of the Church. Jesus not only told Pilate that his kingdom is not of this world, but he was very clear that the nature of the unity of believers is relational not structural. The structures of the Church are a means to an end not the end itself.
By God’s grace, the Anglican Communion is a world wide fellowship. It is no longer an institution of the British Empire. Even if the formality of establishment persists in England, it is an anachronism just like the method of appointment of the Archbishop of Canterbury by the British Monarch on advice of her political advisors. The organization of the Anglican Church is going to have to change radically to adjust to this new reality. In refashioning the Western Anglican Church, we are going to have to draw on new sources of inspiration, perhaps most notably from the explosion of Christianity in the Global South, from the recent examples of persecuted Churches in China, Eastern Europe and elsewhere, and from the experience of the world wide Anglican Communion as it has become a home for the poor and the outcasts in many parts of the world.
You have suggested that the situation of the American and Canadian Churches can best be understood as evidence of God’s judgement resulting from their “pervasive misconstruals of Christian belief and practice”. Given the evidence of the collapse of Christendom, it would seem at least possible that God’s purposes also extends to encompass the cleansing and renewal of His Church so that it can again concentrate on its primary mission of faithful witness and evangelism.
Under these circumstances, I find your view that the creation of the new Province of North America is “at a minimum presumptuous” to be entirely unwarranted. It is open to at least two serious objections. The first is the justification of the English Reformation on which the Anglican Church was founded. The second flows from Jesus’ description of Christian unity in his prayer in John 17. Our unity derives from our relationship with Christ and his relationship with the Father: “I in them and you in me”. Over the centuries the visible structures of the Church have changed and will continue to do so, but the challenge to faithful discipleship remains constant as the bond of unity.
Whether in practice the new Province eventually replaces the two Provinces that are drifting into apostasy, or whether it remains a parallel structure within the Anglican Communion is relatively unimportant. What is really important is the opportunity and the commitment of the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) to get on with sharing the Gospel and making disciples in an environment free from the kind of mindset that recently led the Canadian Primate to imply in a letter to his fellow Primates that the Anglican Church of Canada is obligated to adjust its doctrines simply in order to conform to the changing social provisions of the State.
The Global Anglican Futures Conference, with its creation of a relational Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (which is clearly intended to operate from within the Anglican Communion) and the subsequent emergence of a new North American Province which also seeks to remain within the worldwide Anglican Communion, but does not follow the current framework of territorial monopolies (resembling quasi-nation states) may very well be evidence that the Holy Spirit is blowing a new wind through the Church.
Perhaps, like the early church, we are being both challenged and equipped to evangelize from the margins rather than from the presumed lap of power. My experience so far of the ANiC movement, and now of the ACNA encourage me to believe that those involved are deeply committed to making disciples based on the foundation of a common biblical faith while building unity in relationships. The most powerful scriptural image that strikes me when I consider the secularization of North America is of fields white for harvest. Who will gather in that harvest? If I decide to join the new Province of North America, it will be to try to contribute in some small way to work that I no longer believe is possible within the current confused and conflicted church structures.
Costly Discipleship
Let me turn to my second issue. I concur with your assessment that the drift to apostasy in the present Canadian and United States Provinces has reached a stage where it is no longer possible to “see any near possibility of reform” from within. But if reform is no longer a viable strategy, what exactly do you mean by “patient endurance”?
One of my greatest frustrations as an Anglican these days is not with the reconstructionists who have abandoned Christianity in favour of a secular gospel of relativism and self-affirmation. They at least know where they want to go and in a pluralist society they have every right to go there. (It is taking the Church of Jesus Christ along for the ride that I object to!) No, my greatest issue is with those who are sitting on the fence. At least in the Canadian context, I am aware of bishops and other church leaders who profess orthodox beliefs in private, but who will not speak out in public. The problem is that they do not preach what they (claim to) practice! They inhibit their clergy and their congregations. They insist on due process, but they refuse to speak up when their reconstructionist colleagues bend the rules or ignore the decisions and the entreaties of the worldwide Communion.
Based on reports from Lambeth and from my own experience with a local diocesan “indaba session”, I am convinced that this “lets just stay together and keep talking” approach is in reality a refusal to face Truth in the person of Jesus Christ. The refusal may be unwitting or it may be deliberate. The effect is the same. It plays into the hands of those relativists who see all points of view as equally valid as long as we all stay together in the reconstructionist boat. If enduring silently is what you mean by “patient endurance” then it does mean “dying in place” clutching the trappings of cultural Anglicanism in an apostate church. This is not an option that is honouring to God.
What is a legitimate option, and what I hope you mean by “patient endurance” is actively, persistently, and without compromise speaking into the corrupted structures from within. This is the well trodden path of prophesy. As with those called to be prophets in any age, it is not a comfortable or a popular job! “Patient endurance” is too passive a description for a role that sooner or later will inevitably involve facing bitter criticism, rejection and persecution from those who refuse to listen.
In his book, The Cost of Discipleship, written when he was working out the implications of being faithful to Jesus Christ within the Third Reich, Dietrich Bonhoeffer speaks of “costly grace” pursued through the obedience of discipleship. In his own case, it led Bonhoeffer to speak out not only against the Nazi Church, but against the compromises accepted by the so-called Confessing Church. In the end it led him to Christian martyrdom. None of us are likely facing such an extreme situation today (after all we are living in a pluralist post Christendom era!) but the implications for hardship and suffering are not to be underestimated. We can expect spiritual warfare. The assignment will involve venturing very close to the front lines. Is this what you mean by “patient endurance”? If so, I believe that you have an obligation to spell it out more clearly in ways that will be helpful for those of us who are facing the alternatives that I have described.
A Final Word
I share your frustrations with glib comments about “outside” and “inside “ strategies, but as an Anglican who is seeking to be faithful to Our Lord Jesus Christ, I am still facing a choice. Do I stay or do I go? I believe that both options are legitimate, but the things that make them so also make them very hard and, often, very scary. There are no easy choices. If I join ACNA, I will be leaving behind people that I will continue to love. If I remain where I am, I will still be relying on ACNA and on those who have had the courage to create it to provide me with a lifeline of fellowship and hope to endure as an active witness within the Anglican Church of Canada.
As your paper clearly acknowledges, this is all in the hands of Our Lord. The choice that I and others must make will, in each case, be influenced by the individual circumstances in which He has placed us. Our experience of God is always that His ways are not our ways. “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts” (Isaiah 55) In the end there is only one strategy: His strategy. There is only one church: His Church. If we are faithful to Him, He will continue to build it on us as His foundation.
In Christ,
Mark Larratt-Smith
Wonderfully clear - so many of us face such a decision and this reply clarifies my thoughts entirely. Thank you.
Superb letter Mark Larratt-Smith!
“If I join ACNA, I will be leaving behind people that I will continue to love.”
Luke 9:59-62 But he said to him, ‘Lord, let me first go and bury my father.’ 60 But he said to him, ‘Leave the dead to bury their own dead; but as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God.’ 61 Another said, ‘I will follow you, Lord; but let me first say farewell to those at my home.’ 62 Jesus said to him, ‘No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God.’
2. TU&D
I agree with you that we should be looking to Scripture to find out what God would have us do in these difficult times.
I’m a little leary of Mark’s paper, actually. I’ve responded here.
If you wish to comment on the paper, please do so on Anglican Comment, so as to avoid too much unnecessary controversy on the Essentials Blog.
Thanks,
Michael
Luke 9:59-62 But he said to him, ‘Lord, let me first go and bury my father.’ 60 But he said to him, ‘Leave the dead to bury their own dead; but as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God.’ 61 Another said, ‘I will follow you, Lord; but let me first say farewell to those at my home.’ 62 Jesus said to him, ‘No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God.’
The Gospel of Christ.
But, used in this context extremely offensive to a lot of people. You should be ashamed to even think it, let alone use the Gospel to pervert the courage of the faithful Anglicans who remain in the ACC. I’m not one of them, by the way, but I certainly have more respect for them than this, which is nothing more than the Donatist heresy in Gospel clothes.
Michael Daley
#4 You’ve way overstepped there, Mike. People can feel free to comment here as much as they like, thanks very much. As far as #5 goes, I think you are taking offense where none was meant.
Michael (#5), your objection would seem more sincere if it didn’t appear that you were also using it to increase traffic on your blog.
Warren. Please.
Kate: Not sure what you mean. Write me off-blog and we’ll talk.
MGD
‘Leave the dead to bury their own dead;’
The commenter surely knew the implications of quoting that part of the Gospel. I don’t understand your comment, Kate. How could it not be taken as offensive? Seriously, I’d like to know. Also, Kate, I was pointing out it might be better for folks to comment on the response papers I am preparing on my blog, as that is where they are posted. It’s a matter of simplicity, so I’m not sure what ‘bounds’ I am overstepping.
Warren: re: #5 (and this is the last time I am going to say this to you). I’ve been at this game for a long time, brother. If by simply posting to comment threads on this blog is an attempt to push traffic to my own blog, perhaps you should level the same accusation at everyone else who puts URLs into the ‘Website’ box.
Besides, I don’t give a hoot about ‘traffic.’ If one person visits AC.Com and is encouraged or helped or even gets a laugh, I’m happy. It’s a labour of love, not a popularity contest. I am more than happy to leave that department to David Virtue and his disciples.
I’m abrasive, sometimes. So are you. Get used to it, read a book, have a cream soda. At the end of the day it’s just a blog.
Michael
That’s what you wrote. I thought the object of the sentence was this post, not your reply to it. If folk think that you are just trying to drum up traffic on your blog, maybe it would be better to think about why you are giving that impression than to lash out, eh?
Michael (#9), you’re right, it is just a blog. I have had only a brief foray into Anglicanism, and don’t have an “insider’s perspective” on a lot of things, but I doubt the validity of your comment that the comment in #2 will be offensive to a lot of people. First of all, Canadian Anglicanism as a whole is a small element of Canadian Christianity. Secondly, I seriously doubt that there is more than a small percentage of people within the ACoC who read their Bibles seriously enough or regularly enough (and with spiritually discerning eyes) to even be aware of Luke 9:59-62; let alone understand or care about its meaning. Essentials and this blog wouldn’t exist if that weren’t the case. I wish you were right, though. If a lot of people cared enough to take offence, maybe there still would be hope for the ACoC.
How’s that for offensive?
Lash out? Kate?
I was accused of being disingenuous. I will defend myself in such cases. That’s all that happened. Take it easy. For the record, check my link on this comment.
And that’s my last word on the subject. Here, at least.
MGD
Warren:
“If a lot of people cared enough to take offence, maybe there still would be hope for the ACoC.”
There is always hope. To say ‘there is no hope’ is not a Gospel sentence. Besides, don’t take the Federation’s failure to lead as a sign that no one who cares is left (ugh…such poor grammar…late, here).
MGD
On a very different (and hopefully more positive) note, the Bible study group that I lead/facilitate was engaged in a vigorous discussion, for two hours earlier this evening, on baptism and, in particular, the validity of infant baptism. There were only five of us, but we represented very diverse backgrounds and perspectives. One fellow grew up a devout Catholic. His wife came out of the Lutheran church and is a graduate of a Lutheran college. They met in a Pentecostal church and now attend a Christian Reformed Church. My wife and I grew up in the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada and we have attended a range of evangelical churches; none of which practiced infant baptism (except for the Anglican church I attended for a couple of years). The other lady grew up in the Christian Reformed Church (which practices infant baptism, and is the church that all of us are currently attending) but married a Presbyterian minister.
At the end of the evening, some of us stood firm in our conviction that infant baptism is wrong, some of us remained convinced that infant baptism is right - and I’m waffling in the middle (although I think I can present the paedo-baptism case better than most people in my church who were baptized as infants). That’s not terribly important. What is important, and what I wanted to share, is the Christian love, charity and harmony that were evident throughout the discussion. I was also excited to see the obvious desire on everyone’s part to search Scripture and allow God and His Word to reign over our personal biases.
When God’s people come together to glorify Him, and to study His Word and pray, other differences fade into the background. Ecclesiology cannot be ignored if the Church is to function properly on this earth, but I don’t believe that our ecclesiological (is that a word?) differences will have much relevance in eternity.
Count to ten, then delete what you were about to write and go do something more interesting than commenting on this blog. Look up, there’s a world out there. Go outside and and run around in the white stuff for a bit. Or the green stuff if you’re a wet coaster. Come back in, dry off, grab a coffee, then sit back down. Now you just know you’ll write something different, or maybe nothing at all.
Go on - do it. This is a command from the blog admin who will be obeyed in all matters.
I should put something like that in the blog rules, I really should.
Peter is a ninny.
Oh, sorry. I’ll do the first bit and then come back.
Seriously, though. There is a distinct lack of disagreement on this blog. It almost seems to be discouraged. Going through the other comments on other threads, it seems like a bunch of back-patting.
So, what’s the purpose. Why have comment capabilities at all, if you’re going to discourage meaningful interaction. Sure, I got irate. But only because I was being accused of sins I never committed, nor intended to commit.
If we’re all just going to agree with each other, then … well … that’s just boring, to be honest. It’s navel gazing. One of the things I enjoy the most about sleeping with a philosopher (don’t worry, it’s a woman and I’m married to her) is the intense, occasionally very loud arguments over matters theological at the dinner table. Why do philosophers all think they’re trained in theology, too, by the way?
What do you do when you meet members of the ACC with whom you strongly disagree? Walk away?
This whole caffufle (sp?) started this evening simply because I called a commenter on something he/she wrote. It was a brazen misuse of Scripture…something that the Network has been quite active in pointing out when it comes to the Anglican Church of Canada.
I thought it, therefore, entirely appropriate for me to raise the point, here.
So, why the reaction that I got? Is it because I no longer toe the Essentials line? My occasional abrasiveness was allowed - even enjoyed occasionally - back in the day, when I was helping expose the Bishop of Niagara for what he was. Back when I was a team player.
Do I not get to have my say just because I won’t play ball, anymore?
So, carry on blog admin. FWIW, I’ve never banned anyone in my life, but if you’d like to do so, my IP is static and is 206.248.172.182. (Though, I own several Class ‘C’s, I promise not to use them).
Blessings for your future endeavours,
Michael Daley
It’s “curfuffle”
We’re not going to ban you Mike. We might edit the comments though so that you’re wishing us all fluffy pink bunnies and big wet sloppy kisses. If I feel in the mood to do that.
Seriously, though, Blog Rules rule, as written above. For all of us, not just you Mike. Else I might just have to invoke the fluffy pink bunny rule…..
Dave:
Your picture of Michael was brilliant, mate.
I’ve updated that post to include it.
MGD
After some thought, here’s an alternative.
Imagine you’re in my living room, talking to me face to face. No, I’m not through yet. Imagine that I’ve had to listen to a day of +++Rowan expounding the joys of Sharia law, and that I’ve developed a nervous facial tick. Also that I’ve obtained a rather large carving knife from somewhere and am thumbing the blade in a slightly disconcerting way with an odd gleam in my eye.
Now please, do carry on.
#16 Michael Daley
I’ve found the blog administrators very courteous and committed to open debate here since I started posting contrarian views under a pseudonym.
Michael,
You are not a free speech martyr. You are simply rude, abrasive and sensational.
If there was substance in your posts, I’d read them. However, when you’ve succeeded in riling all three Admins and been lectured by my brother Noli, you are way over the line.
The thing is you are obviously capable of making a positive contribution to the debate. Why don’t you?
Peace,
Jim
I’ve met Peter in real life. That is a very disconcerting mental image.
There are four of us actually, Jim. Maybe you need a second cup of coffee this morning?
Kate,
I’m in real trouble. I’m working on my third coffee.
Peace,
Jim
Jim:
Can you describe how I am rude and sensational, please?
I am abrasive, yes. I can make little apology for this, as I fear it has invaded my essense.
Lack of substance. Now, that’s one I’ve never seen before.
Michael,
If you can’t see it, I can’t make you.
Peace,
Jim
Michael,
Although I have no interest in debating your personality, your parsing my comment out of this thread and onto your Bog, once again shows who you are and what you are up to.
Good luck on your Blog.
Peace,
Jim
Michael,
Apologies for the typo in my previous post. Bog should be Blog. No pun intended.
Jim
Jim:
It couldn’t possible have anything to do with the fact that you’re wrong, could it? Further, posting your snipes on my blog doesn’t do a thing so far as rankings, etcetera and as I have already stated, I don’t care about rankings, anyway.
Your refusal to back-up your allegations against me reveal a distinct lack of understanding of the implications of what you’ve now labelled me.
You don’t know me. You don’t know who I am. And what is this “what you are up to” nonsense? As though I have some nefarious plot to overthrow the entire Anglican blogging world with my greatness and pithy little snipes at bishops. For goodness sake, I’m a member of the Anglican Church of Kenya. I report directly to a Kenyan Bishop. How much more do I need to say on this? I’m you! I’m just not part of Essentials! Mark made some grand mistakes in his paper. If we’re not allowed to disagree, then you’re proven my point about this weblog. Dissenters will be removed to politburo for re-training.
The subject of this thread is the merits of Mr. Larratt-Smith’s paper. I think he’s made some grave theological mistakes in it. If you’re prepared to discuss that, great!
If not, do be quiet, and grow a sense of humour (that goes for the rest of you), as I’ve just about run out of patience.
If you would like to put an end to what I see as truth-telling, then your only course of action is to have your bishop contact mine and have me ordered offline. Until that time, I will continue to interact with the ANiC publications - where I see error, and where I do not.
It should seem obvious by now that I am flexible and can admit when I am wrong. You need only look to the 180 I’ve done with respect to the Anglican Communion Institute.
Michael
Ahem. Please go read the blog rules re: charity.
Michael,
Truth is in the eye of the beholder.
As for your Blog aspirations:
“If you wish to comment on the paper, please do so on Anglican Comment, so as to avoid too much unnecessary controversy on the Essentials Blog.”
You blew into this Blog casting around labels and you continue to:
“But, used in this context extremely offensive to a lot of people. You should be ashamed to even think it, let alone use the Gospel to pervert the courage of the faithful Anglicans who remain in the ACC. I’m not one of them, by the way, but I certainly have more respect for them than this, which is nothing more than the Donatist heresy in Gospel clothes.”
“It was a brazen misuse of Scripture…something that the Network has been quite active in pointing out when it comes to the Anglican Church of Canada.”
It would be very nice of you to stick to the substance of the thread as opposed to making it all about Michael and some big bad conspiracy:
“Do I not get to have my say just because I won’t play ball, anymore?”
To borrow again from your repertoire: “do be quiet…”
Peace,
Jim
You still haven’t answered my question, Jim. Do you not have an answer? I believe I am entitled to one.
This conspiracy nonsense is just that. Nonsense. Go back to the beginning of the thread and see how this got started.
Kate, it would be nice if those rules on charity were enforced across the board. But, as they are not, I shall carry on.
You, Jim, made it about me. I am simply defending myself against some serious allegations. Since that has not been forthcoming, I will drop the issue and assume it to be just a ‘drive-by’ comment, on your part. 519-702-9100. Call me. Any time.
Also, I am still trying to get someone to defend the assertion that the faithful remnant in the ACC are all ‘dead.’ Why not attend an ACC service, one morning? Approach some of the Christian parishioners and remind them that they’re dead and you have no interest in them. Think about what would happen. Hopefully that will give you a grasp of the seriousness of what was said.
It’s complete and utter triumphalistic garbage and reeks of Donatism - which, I might remind you, is a serious form of heresy that was dealt with over a thousand years ago.
MGD
Michael,
You’ve already pleaded guilty to rude (or its derivatives) and abrasive in several other posts -so you’re outraged at being called sensational? Go figure.
Peace,
Jim
Mike, what makes you think I wasn’t speaking to Jim as well as to you? Everyone take a deep breath and calm down, please. Maybe if Truth Unites is still reading this, he/she could step in and explain why that particular scripture was chosen for your comment?
FWIW, I thought he/she was referring to the leaders of the ACoC, not the faithful remnant.
To get back to Mark Larratt-Smith: for my part I largely agree what he said. One can fault the last couple of sentences since they say that we are the foundation of the Church, and actually Christ is. I am guessing that what was intended was more along the lines of, Christ will continue to build his Church using faithful believers.
I do think the ACoC is a dying institution – the membership decline alone would imply as much; that is not to say that all who attend are spiritually dead. I belong to a parish that has left and I am glad: I believe it was the right thing to do. I would like to see more parishes leave the ACoC and join ANiC. However, if in the end, the ACoC does repent and turn back to Christ, I am quite sure that those who have left would be delighted – and return.
OK, enough. This thread is locked. The Blog Rules above are not onerous. If you want to behave in this way, take it off-blog please.
We’re happy for there to be debate on contentious matters, all we ask is for a certain degree of courtesy to be shown to each other. If that’s not going to be possible, then we will put you in comment mod. We don’t want to do that, but will if necessary to stop this sort of thing happening.
Thank you,
Peter