Now that the General Convention has largely stated where The Episcopal Church stands in regards to the welcome we offer to gay Christians to full membership and leadership within all orders (whether celibate or in a nuptial union), I wonder -- what will we talk about with equal passion in the years to come?
While it was abundantly clear at the recently concluded General Convention that the overwhelming majority are going to support such inclusion, I wonder if we will have either such a large degree of unanimity on other questions -- or -- whether those who have essentially joined arms for this matter will remain together for the next matters?
Specifically, I am concerned that we begin to look beyond the question of applying a uniform sexual ethic to all persons regardless of orientation (celibacy or nuptial union) and focus on other matters like, prayer book revision, and our practice/policy regarding sacramental issues of baptism, confirmation, communion, confession/absolution, etc. I personally am very much more concerned that the great treasures of the faith which I see amply and beautifully attested to in the language of the 1979 Prayer Book, the catechism, etc., be put forth with great gusto in our worship, preaching, teaching and mission.
So I'm wondering - is there the same degree of passion or agreement on controversial points like 'communion without baptism' -- or the full-scale reworking of the Prayer Book -- or doing away with confirmation -- etc., etc.?
On this blog, I have gathered that we tend to be a group of folks who are 'catholic' on the essentials pointed to in the quadrilateral, and generally very interested in preserving the maximal degree of traditional verities and gifts as we can. I also have gathered the sense from this blog that many of our readers are very well informed in theology, church history, biblical study, etc.
What do you all think? Are we looking at the beginning of a new moment, when for once we will not be as focused on questions of including persons of different sexual identities, and may begin to refocus on other questions of sacramental theology, church practice, worship texts, etc? Is there a degree of variety on these questions that does not really any longer exist on the question of including glbts?
Please let me know. Frankly, I'd be very interested in our going into the next generation clearly proclaiming the Gospel as currently testified to in the 1979 Prayer Book/1982 Hymnal -- with but few emendations or modifications to certain pronouns and whatnot. I see absolutely no strong case for the reversal of the canons on communion without baptism - or the age-old argument that we should be phasing out confirmation. As well, I see absolutely no strong case for adding to or deleting any of the six eucharistic prayers (Rite Ii and ii; Rite II abcd). The idea that we need anything more than a very lightly modified post-millenium update of 1979 is very suspect to me.
Moreover, I'd be much more interested in seeing our diocesan and general convention be focused a great deal more, and with equal gusto, in prayer, worship, mission strategy, church growth training, and discussion of partnership with other Christian bodies with whom our separation is a complete waste of time (and the Gospel itself.)
Please chime in -- let's think about the next chapter in our common life -- and what the big issues are.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I am very concerned about that very issue of what we as the Episcopal Church are going to obsess about next. And I fear that now the extreme liberals in the church seem to have full control of General Convention, the flood gates are going to open on issues of prayerbook revision and issues like Communion of the Unbaptized and getting rid of Confirmation. They tried really hard to get rid of Confirmation in 1979, in fact if you look at the first trial BCP, ay rite of Confirmation is glaringly absent. I fear if the road we are going to go down is to end up with a BCP like the New Zealand prayerbook and politically correct liturgies and all that, then I will have to rethink my allegiance to this church.
Archer,
I guess my question is: 'What is the consensus among the dominant majority you call 'liberals' vis a vis these other matters?'
I'm not sure there is one.
Fr. Jones,
I don't think we are past the sex issues yet nor will we be for a while. As AiF's comment indicates, we'll get very little *real* work done if we remain lodged in the culture war mentality. The real issues that will be confronting us in the next few decades are hindered rather than helped by the old axis.
I'm too slammed with other matters to write a full response here, but I've already identified what I see as our best way forward with an Episcopal Reform of the Reform.
fatherjones.com--
Over at "Captain Yip's Secret Journal" blog, the present leadership of TEC is described as "heterodox modernists." The blogger defines the term this way:
"'heterodox' to denote an embrace of almost any expression that is at odds with - what shall we say? Nicene Christianity? - and 'modernism' to denote the desire to be cut loose entirely from any historical roots, to be forever changing as the world forever changes."
I think the blogger very accurately describes the theological worldview of TEC's leadership, which logically leads to the expectation that more of the historical roots of Anglican doctrine, liturgy, sacraments and practice will be pulled up when they are at odds with whatever issue the culture has enthroned as required for those who see themselves as a part of one of the elites of the culture.
The inclusion issue, of course, drives the push for communion of the unbaptized (as it drove the approval of ordination for non-celibate gays and lesbians and the blessing of same sex relationships), and any historical roots which prevent such a "radically open communion table" will have to be plucked up.
There will, of course, be a new "new thing" tomorrow which will be enthroned as a "must do" by the culture and whatever historical religious roots that contradict it will have to be ripped out so that the new "new thing" can be successfully planted in the soil of today's culture. Another name for this orientation is, of course, secularism.
The answer to your question is, I think, that none of the apostolic tradition handed on in Scripture, in doctrine, in liturgy, and in Christian institutions and practice is safe from attack since secularism or "heterodox modernism" is a hungry beast which feeds on such morsels and will only be satisfied when they are all plucked up and consumed, so that the ground is cleared of all such historical obstacles and ready for the planting of the next "new thing."
Archer,
I think there are many folks who would reflect Derek's "Episcopal Reform the Reform" - centrists who aren't in this to slog the 79 book into another universe. As Derek eloquently mentions, the 79 book has a spot or two to clean up without a complete overhaul vis a vis New Zealand. In his words I hear reflections of Hatchett, Mitchell, Price, and Galley and so many of the other scholars that did contribute to the 79 revision.
The New Zealand book at its heart was written by committee and by non-scholars. With the bishop liturgical scholars that are in the HOBs now - +Marshall of Bethlehem and +Alexander of Atlanta aren't ones to allow haphazard revision.
Viator,
I think "Heterodox Modernist" is somewhere between bette noir and Puff the Magic Dragon. My sense is -- and I share this with many of my 40 and under colleagues (forgive me if that's agist) -- that the apparent uniformity frequently identified as 'heterodox modernist' is not quite there, apart from the question of glbt folks. Derek suggests the sex issues are far from over, and he may be correct, but as wedge issue (or unifying issue) I'm not seeing it as lasting forever. As one who hopes to be in this for the long haul, I am looking forward to talking about something else -- and -- that it be primarily focused on the joyous treasures so amply attested to in Scripture, Creed, Sacrament and the liturgy rooted in the BCP tradition.
I wish we were beyond the Sex Wars, but alas I think not. These have taken so much energy that the Churches seem unable to attend to reality and the crises we face and which we are given to God's mission.
One war has left many so drained, that I suspect, changes to our liturgy may happen rather rapidly without a concerted effort to not only resist but to offer reasons why.
My study of the eucharistic prayers, now almost complete, suggests that reform of the reform needs more than a bit of tweaking here or there, but a relationship of two underlying formational strands that form us in particular ways existentially. The one flows out of and developed within the other, and both are necessary to a solid Anglican outlook. What we see is a push to move us the edges of one strand while leaving the other behind, not in word, but in the rhythms and oscillations through which the prayer takes us into being formed before God. The end result is a "can do" mentality that ultimately, and non-intuitively does not serve us, others, and creation in our poverty-stricken, ecological crises-ridden age.
I think we ought to put a hold on reform of our present Prayer Book for at least one generation and preferably two or more, because the issues are much deeper than inclusive language or not, vernacular or not, historical archaeological usage or not, those things over which the Liturgy Wars so often are entrenched.
Prayer Book revision? Ugh! I don't think the desire or the energy is out there (in TEC) for that. But that is such a very slow process. There were "Prayer Book Studies" in the 1950s. And I remember the Green Book and the Zebra Book in the early 1970s. I am quite content with the 1979 BCP (and we have such flexibility and freedom with that text now, plus the alternatives provided by EOW). I hope the church becomes more missional and outward focused.
I guess I am older than some of you because I remember the '76 book denounced widely as a liberal plot to demolish the faith once delivered to the saints. It was then proof of the utter apostacy and and infidelity of the Episcopal Church. Gosh, is there anybody else who remembers the "Trendier than Thou" cover of Harpers? And I certainly remember when the Hymnal 1940 and the sainted Charles Winifred Douglas were also the gold standard of orthodoxy. Strange to discover that the 1982 book - widely disparaged when introduced - now holds the same position.
I mostly really like our Prayerbook. But there are some clinkers in it. I just hate most of the changes to 1928 that Rite I made (except for the position of the Gloria). Every time I hear "Hear the Word of God to all who truly turn to Him" my blood pressure goes up. And the changes to the Prayer for the Whole State of Christ's Church were not good either. Does anybody ever use the alternative Rite I Eucharistic Prayer?
Rite II Prayer C was awful when written and has not aged well. It could go to liturgical heaven. Prayer D should be kept, but since it's so long it is seldom used. So we could use a couple more Eucharistic Prayer of the A Prayer length. The intercessions could be supplemented: I grew tired of some of them by 1980. I've seen a lot of really bad stuff under the "Rite III" rubrics and I think some retreat from that level of freedom would not be bad.
So, I would hardly put liturgical reform up there with evangelism in our priorities, but I would not mind a minor reform of the book. I would far rather we made some changes to the Book then allowed the priests and congregations to ignore it and replace it with their own Kevin Forrester style creations.
I am actually a big fan of Rite I with short confession, 'We' creed, and Eucharistic Prayer II -- I love the recitation of the law, comfortable words, prayer of humble access and post communion prayer. We use most of the options from time to time in the BCP -- though to be sure -- Prayer D doesn't get much action and C doesn't get much love.
Post a Comment