What we are seeing is the Gap between parties in the Episcopal Church who have not historically been seen to be different. The party of theological 'free thinkers' who have eschewed since the 1960s any appreciation for theological and liturgical coherence are awakening to see that there are also Episcopalians who favor the ample and generous orthodoxy of the Prayer Book and Hymnal, and are looking for a more inclusive church, but who are not looking to tweak, revise, redact or avoid the core elements of the faith, or make revision and innovation the constant modus operandi of the church either.
The party of folks who want to keep things loose, open, and 'challenging' -- are finding new resistance from those who want to keep things theologically and liturgically coherent, in and of themselves and in line with centuries of faith and practice, as well as with the global Anglican Communion.
The past number of years has perhaps seen folks from both parties operating together - because both agree with the affirmation of women and glbt people. But, perhaps now, we are beginning to see that once the equality issues are more widely agreed upon internally in TEC, other areas are much less agreed upon.
As I have begun to see on this blog, as well as on Episcopal Cafe, there is an impressive cadre of Episcopalian laity and clergy who are very serious (and usually very educated) about theology and the Anglican tradition. This group tends to agree on matters of theology, liturgy and church order, AND, in regard to the affirmation of women's ordination and the inclusion of all the baptized into sacramental life and leadership.
14 comments:
Fr. Greg, I quoted this post at the Cafe in my latest comment:
I would like to pick up again on what Fr. Schell notes: What I think is an inaccurate pitting of portions against one another when together they maintain our genereous and wholesome faith.
Core doctrine (dogma, right thinking or rather Anglicanly, sufficient thinking or even better saving Relationship to the Persons to which these lead us) is not opposed to right praising, that is, our common praying. Doctrine is also not opposed to mysticism, that is interiority and contemplation--resting in God (to use St Gregory the Great's term and one I prefer).
The Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed (as Weil and Wainwright has rightly said, a piece of poetry in its own right, just like our Anaphorae) arises out of vigourous intellectual debates framed within the regular encounter of God in liturgy and in contemplation. St Athanasius, as with the Cappadocians, are rightly considered doctrinal (thinking), liturgical (praising), and mystical (contemplating).
Yes, it was also political, but just because politics were involved does not mean they aren't related to the things of God. On the contrary, God works through the dealings of the polis, through history, including the poor moments. This too is part of a full appreciation for the Incarnation.
I think we are unwisely conflating denial of consents to one whose theology is deemed problemtic with the burning of heretics. These are not in the same category of behavior or treatment. After all, that saint, James DeKoven, was denied consents more than once. He continued to teach and preach, perservering in God's steadfast love. We honor him today as an example to us. And he would wish us to be engaged in vigorous theological examination. To conflate denial of consents with witch hunts and inquisitions suggests to me that we want to stifle, even silence, any theological inquiry in relation to those who would be bishops. I notice around what Fr. Greg calls the "Establishment Left" a continued refusal to recognize that some of us also marked "Moderate-to-Left" had theological concerns rather than mere concerns about the process or his being a practitioner of Za-Zen.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't pause to self-examine, to be self-critical. I'm well aware of poor moments in the history of the Churches. As I wrote at Fr. Haller's recently: History cannot be disappeared by "the Church has always taught" or pointing to a few shining exemplars who stood contrary of the age (and to Church teaching of the time). Indeed, to ignore the failings of the Church, our errors, is to ignore precisely how it is that God brings us to better understanding--through life, politics, debate, conversation, i.e., History. To deny the poor moments of our history is to give up something of the Incarnation.
I'm right with you here!
Nice posting, Greg. And insightful comments, Christopher.
I've taken the liberty of posting this piece over at my blog, adding some of my own thoughts there as a preface.
I came into this church in 1992 and was baptized with the 1979 rite at the age of 22. What drew me to the Church was the sacraments and the sense of connection with the primitive Church. My home parish was a good, solid progressive Anglo-Catholic parish. I was later shocked to see how hostile some fellow progressives were to the creeds and historic Christianity. I am willing to make common cause with these friends on the issue of full inclusion, but I have always throught that the hostility to credal Christianity came from the fact that so many credal Christians bind their faith up with a narrow mindedness that is foreign to true orthodoxy.
Bill, very similar to my own experience and story.
How many of folks who identify here with what I'm talking about -- in addition to Christopher, Derek, and Bill -- are Generation X folks?
I was born in '74 and am thus very near the X/Y cut-off.
I see that Matt Kennedy and others over at Stand Firm are having a slam-fest on this posting.
Bill Carroll's comment, "I was later shocked to see how hostile some fellow progressives were to the creeds and historic Christianity" reminded me of a comment that James Alison made at Trinity Institute some years ago. Someone had suggested that the speakers that year were "progressives," to which Alison took exception, identifying himself as orthodox. Alison's convictions about homosexuality are certainly unconventional ones for a Roman Catholic priest and theologian, but I think he was right in claiming the orthodox label. I find myself similarly placed as fairly ortodox on matters of doctrine, but see as progressive on social issues and ethics.
Like Derek, I too was born in '74.
So, is there a fault line between "full inclusion" and "creedal orthodoxy?" I can honestly say that I fully support the inclusion of all people in the life of the Church and I support only ordaining leaders who understand, can articulate, and teach the faith as it has been given to us (this is what we vow to do as clergy anyway).
You can read more of my thoughts on the subject at The Deacon's Slant
I was born in '69 and am a proud member of the KISS army.
Like Bill, I'm the "class" of '69, too.
'69. Same age as my Twin Reverb.
Post a Comment