Tract 3: Against Iconoclasm

“Nobody, after all, uses words except for the sake of signifying something.”
- St. Augustine, De Doctrina Christiana (I.2,2)

Introduction

Reconciliation in Communion: A Word to the 76th General Convention of the Episcopal Church begins with a series of prescriptive theological points about matters of faith and order in the Episcopal Church, each of which is made by way of affirmation.  The bulk of the document, which comes after these, consists of points that are concerned with the actions of the forthcoming General Convention.  Between these two thematic sections, however, is a single historically-oriented point that, although both affirmative and prescriptive, also considers the future.

[We] Affirm that the self-understanding and mission of the Episcopal Church have become inextricably anchored to its relationship of full communion with the See of Canterbury, its active participation in the Instruments of Communion, and its formal and informal partnerships throughout the Anglican Communion.  This is reflected in our liturgical patterns, and the continued allocation of funds for the Anglican Communion.

The operative words in this statement are that “the self-understanding and mission of the Episcopal Church have become inextricably anchored to … the See of Canterbury.”  This statement is not for us, the authors, merely a question of ecclesiological theory.  It is also a question of the concrete, material realities within the Episcopal Church that are given symbolic expression.  In other words, we are especially concerned about how the Episcopal Church communicates itself to those who are within and outside of its walls.  Thus, this tract will begin with a brief discussion of the nature of symbols, and then move on to consider some of the symbols of the Episcopal Church that witness to its historically rich identity.  I will conclude with a proposal that focuses on what a separation between our church and the wider Anglican Communion could look like – specifically, as a tragic and horrific expression of iconoclasm.

On the Unavoidability of the Present Moment

[Below is a brief response by myself to a draft proposal at Betwixt and Between.]

As one who helped to draft Reconciliation in Communion (which you refer to as A Word to the Church), I confess that I don’t fully understand the claim that our statement is partisan and that we seek to divide and win, rather than build up and unify. I think that the broad outlines of your own draft statement maps, in many ways, quite nicely onto ours. Ergo, I would like to hear more of your thoughts about the differences, whether implied or explicit.

I do think that there is something to be said, however, for concrete means of identification such as ecclesiology, justice, etc. I don’t see how, within an incarnational context, form can be divorced from – or, for that matter, set against – content. They go together.

Reconciliation in Communion

A Word to the 76th General Convention of the Episcopal Church

An initiative of Covenant
http://www.covenant-communion.net

Holy Week 2009

We, the undersigned laity and clergy of the Episcopal Church, offer the following as a testament to our concern for the life and witness of our church and its membership in the Anglican Communion.  The God-given bonds of affection that unite us to one another are based in the prior unity of love that is God’s own Trinitarian life; for this reason, our corporate life should continually strive to be an icon of this same love.  At the present moment, we are particularly mindful that “God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself” (II Cor. 5:19), and that because of this we have been given a “ministry of reconciliation” (II Cor. 5:18). It is our prayer that the Holy Spirit will give the Episcopal Church a renewed awareness that at the heart of our common mission lies the ministry of reconciliation, which endeavors “to restore all people to unity with God and each other in Christ” (BCP Catechism, p. 855).

To that end, we

Theses on Anglicanism

I. Anglican history comprises two distinct ecclesiological streams.  The first is that of monarchical Anglicanism, which began with Henry VIII; this was the dominant stream for more than 300 years.  The second is that of the Anglican Communion, which began with the first Lambeth Conference; this is now the dominant stream at both the international and national (i.e., provincial) levels.  The Anglican Communion is a non-monarchical church (ekklesia) that depends first and foremost upon the apostolic succession of bishops as a guarantee of its historic, catholic nature.

II. The Anglican reformation was not, as is commonly claimed, primarily political and only secondarily theological.  The enthronement of the monarch as the “supreme head” of the Church of England was as much a theological development as it was a political development.  Thus, Anglican history and theology cannot be understood without paying close attention to the history and theology of monarchy.

III. Anglicanism must re-conceive itself as a portion of the catholic Church that was once monarchical, but is now post-monarchical.  Anglicanism has yet to conceive of itself as post-monarchical, and it cannot do this until it understands what it meant for it to have once been monarchical.

Adversus Rick Warren

[Rick Warren, evangelical mega-pastor of Saddleback Church, has recently expressed his support for the schismatic ACNA.  My thoughts, submitted to The Living Church, are published below.]

On the one hand, it could be said that this is disappointing; Rick Warren has a considerable level of pull among *some* Christians – evangelicals, mainly, although evangelicalism’s ecclesiologically diffuse existence mitigates against anyone ever being able to co-opt the majority (let alone the entirety) of that ever-teeming sea of churches.  Nonetheless, to become involved in another church’s affairs and begin telling them what to do – especially when one is not even anywhere in their ecumenical orbit – is not a little verbose.  And, in light of polemics against ECUSA’s/TEC’s unilateralism (both real and imagined), Mr. Warren’s actions do indeed seem ecclesiologically imperialistic: no one asked him to set foot in our domains, so why does he think that he has the right to do so?

On the other hand, as a Southern Baptist, Mr. Warren is about as far from (historic) Anglicanism as he could be on matters of ecclesiology, as well as liturgical, sacramental and biblical theology (all of which, for Anglicans, are bound up with the entirety of church history); indeed, he is no closer to historic Anglican orthodoxy than the motley lot of bishops that are currently – and utterly carelessly – balancing our entire Communion (not to mention our national province!) over the precipice of ecclesiastical disaster and disintegration.  Thus, his statement that “[The Episcopal Church has] already considered me an adversary after partnering on projects with Kolini, Orumbi, and Nzimbi, and writing the TIME bio on Akinola” is a bit like the pot calling the kettle black.  As he – and we – ought to well know, the number of people upset about that article could not have been a majority in our fair church, just as a majority in our fair church could not have been in favor of the article.  (It is interesting to note, however, that TIME published a bio. on Akinola in 2007 – one year after Warren’s bio. – that took a very different angle on the Primus of Nigeria.)  The simple point here is that the opinion of a Southern Baptist minister, even one as popular as Mr. Warren, need be of no real concern to Anglicans in the USA or elsewhere (John Chane, of all people, notwithstanding).  If ACNA thinks that the opinion of Mr. Warren is something like an ace in their collectively schismatic pocket, this only goes to show how far they themselves are from the Anglican orthodoxy of Cranmer, Hooker, Andrewes, Butler, Ramsey, etc.  To be “overwhelmed” (as Rev. Crocker apparently is) by Warren’s gesture only shows that some “evangelicals” are as inclined to reduce Anglicanism to a merely liturgical aesthetic as some “progressives”.  If that is the case, it is regrettable at best but, at all other times, proactively destructive of what remains in our present litany of increasingly fragile moments.

“Full of Tongue and Weake of Braine”: Some Thoughts upon the GAFCON Document The Way, the Truth and the Life

“As therefore Physicians are many times forced to leave such methods of curing as themselves know to be fittest, and being overruled, by their patients impatiency are faine to try the best they can, in taking that way of cure, which the cured will yield unto: in like sort, considering how the case doth stand with this present age full of tongue and weake of braine…”

- Richard Hooker, Of the Lawes of Ecclesiasticall Politie (1593), I.8.2 (FLE I:83.4 – 9)

Introduction

The Global Anglican Fellowship Conference (hereafter, GAFCON) “handbook” The Way, the Truth and the Life was written “to serve as a theological introduction and definition for GAFCON.”[1] Set within the wider context of both GAFCON’s Resource Papers and its final, unsigned, unendorsed and anonymously authored “Statement on the Global Anglican Future”, The Way, the Truth and the Life brings together many of the major theological and historical emphases of what the conveners of GAFCON claim is “a movement in the Spirit.”[2] What follows is not a point-by-point commentary, but my basic argument is simple: more than any other revisionist movement in the Communion today, GAFCON closes off the very possibility of a recognizably Anglican future because it most cuts us off from a recognizably Anglican past. I set forth the evidence for this claim by going through GAFCON’s handbook, commenting upon select portions. Sadly, it does not appear to be the habit of the handbook’s authors to back up many of their claims with either supporting documentation or even a bibliography; much of what follows is written, in part, to get the respective authors to give some sort of reasonable validation for the claims that they make. At the very least, then, I hope that what follows will ultimately be both constructive and informative.

One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic: A Response to Alister McGrath’s “Anglicanism and Protestantism”

In a recent op-ed published in the Church of Ireland Gazette, Alister McGrath asserts that Gregory Cameron, Deputy Secretary General of the Anglican Communion, has “publicly distanced Anglicanism from Protestantism.”[1] In an article pertaining to Anglican ecumenical relations with Protestants, Old Catholics, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and the Mar Thoma Church of India, Cameron had written that “episcopacy is the clearest outstanding issue in dialogue with the Protestant traditions.”[2] McGrath interprets this as a denial of Anglicanism as a protesting ecclesial body, and uses it as an opportunity to rehash some rather old and tiresome debates pertaining to 19th century Anglo-Catholic historiography. McGrath then writes that Cameron “appears to belong to the revisionist school of thought which is trying to airbrush out Anglicanism’s Protestant heritage and tradition.” The real irony of all of this is that despite McGrath’s own credentials, his accusations against Cameron have nothing to do with Cameron’s own words in the aforementioned article, but McGrath’s own inability – or, perhaps, refusal – to think beyond a rather simple definition of Protestantism that cannot countenance Anglican particularity.