Anglicanism Recap

I have avoided commenting on the current crisis in the Anglican Communion for some time because so much has been happening of late, and so unusually quickly, and I don't want to jump to premature judgment (and because I have been quite busy with real life).

A few weeks ago the primates (archbishops who head the 38 provinces of the Anglican Communion) met at Tanzania to decide, among other things, what to do about the American (Episcopal, ECUSA) Church that has failed to comply with 2004's "Windsor Report" which required that the American Church should consecrate no more practicing homosexual bishops, should disallow the blessing of same-sex unions, and should apologize for the church-wide crisis that has been caused. The Primates proposed the creation a "primatal vicar," an administrative and spiritual leader (but probably not a bishop) who could provide oversight to orthodox Episcopalians as an alternative to the current hierarchy of the church, and they also gave the Episcopal Church until September 30th to decide whether the American Church would comply with the Windsor Report.

American leaders initially balked at these ideas, arguing that a September deadline did not provide enough time for the ECUSA's democratic processes to work. Last week the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church, USA, met in Texas and rejected the idea of a primatal vicar -arguing (correctly, perhaps) that it would create two de facto Episcopal Churches - and some bishops began talking of schism from the Anglican Communion. The gauntlets appear to have been thrown.

So what will happen? Only time (probably more of it than one would expect) will tell. I believe the Episcopal Church will ultimately split at some point in the future and the Anglican Communion will restructure itself to create some sort limitations on the autonomy of the provinces in favor of a more centralized authority that could deal with such crises in the future.

The Church will split because there is simply no moderating position to be had. One side - the smaller liberal side - believes that God created homosexuality and affirms it just as he does sex between a husband and wife. To them denial of "gay rights" is contrary to the will of God (whether we are talking about marriage or ordination or whatever issue, I find the language of "rights" in the church extremely unhelpful, since it is secular/legalistic language with little or no theological reference point - we have no "rights" before God, only gifts from him). The other side - the conservative majority - believes that God has revealed his plan for human sexuality in the Bible which condemns homosexual practice and that anything beyond that Biblical vision is sinful and contrary to the will of God. This side sees homosexual desire not as God-given but as a product of our corrupted and fallen nature, like so many other desires we all experience. As one commentator put it "they [the ECUSA leadership] want to make a sin into a sacrament." When we stop talking about "rights" and reframe the question in theological terms, we see how vast is the divide between the two sides.

The internal logic of each position necessitates an "all or nothing" approach because they have completely opposite theological understandings of nature of homosexual inclination. For either side to compromise would be to betray their own convictions. I know that is a gloomy prediction, especially for those of us concerned with the unity of the body, but how can they walk together who both fully intend to go in opposite directions? At any rate the rest of us, in church (especially the UMC) and in civil society should watch carefully what is happening.

I would be very surprised if the coming split happened all at once or in as relatively neat a fashion as those before the Civil War (when the Episcopal Church did NOT split). Some parishes and dioceses will leave sooner, and some later.

I have been wondering aloud what implications this will have for the "full communion" talks between my own United Methodist Church (UMC) and the Anglican Communion by way of the ECUSA. Full Communion was supposed to have happened by 2012, but I suspect the Episcopal Church could be split and/or out of the Anglican Communion by then, so this raises the issue of just who it is we wanted to be in full communion with. A Methodist pastor and seminarian suggested to me that the UMC should seek to become an autonomous "international province" of the Anglican Communion, perhaps by 2020. As nice as I think that would be (assuming the Anglicans had their mess sorted out), I doubt many low-church Methodists or high-church Anglicans would have much enthusiasm for that. But then, stranger things have happened in terms of ecclesial mergers. If such a merger were ever to happen, I suggest that the UMC change its name back to our old name, "The Methodist Episcopal Church," or perhaps (even better) change it to "The Methodist Anglican Church." But we'll just have to wait, maybe 15 or 20 years, and see what happens.

Evolution of a worshipper

Don't you love/hate when you see something hilarious that is also uncomfortably close to home? In addition to my life this cartoon reminds me of Rob Webber's theory that lots of young Evangelicals end up on "The Canterbury Trail." If you look in the right side of my title banner you will see a scene from Sunday Worship at Cox Chapel of Highland Park United Methodist Church, and (I am not entirely certain but) there is a good chance that I am the person in front with the processional cross lifted high...

I found this awesome cartoon here.

Worship video 1

I have long held that the dichotomy that we create, between "contemporary" and "traditional" worship is simply wrong-headed. There are all sorts of worship styles that don't really fit into either category. And there are worship services (such as you will find at a Charismatic Episcopal Church) that use contemporary music and traditional liturgy at the same time. I hope we are learning for the "Emergent/ing" and the "Ancient/Future" folks that worship really is bigger and richer than that dichotomy.
Still, some of my readers may have the impression that I fall decidedly on the "traditional/liturgical" side of that dichotomy that I have just been rejecting as the only legitimate framework for thinking about worship. So, let me share with you some of the greatest worship leaders I know: Shane and Shane. I hesitate to call them my favorite "band" since they really are worship leaders and all of their concerts just turn out to be extended services of singing praise to our Lord.

Lenten Thoughts

I've been far too busy of late to actually do much writing. However, I have still been reading, and so I'll share a few things that struch me during this season of Lent:

"If is fitting that it be recorded that the first Adam was cast out of Paradise into the desert (Gen 3), that you may observe how the second Adam returned from the desert to Paradise....Adam brought death through the tree. Christ brought life through the cross. Adam, naked of spiritual things, covered himself with the foliage of a tree. Christ, naked of worldly things, did not desire the trappings of the body. Adam lived in the desert. Christ lived in the desert, for he knew where he could find the lost. With their error canceled, he could recall them to Paradise...So Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, is led into the desert for a purpose, on order the challenge the devil. If he had not fought, he would not have conquered him for me." - St. Ambrose, bishop of Milan - Exposition of the Gospel of Luke 4:7,14

The next one, from the Philokalia, struck me and at first I thought it was rather 2-dimensional, if not entirely wrong, but as I have considered it I think there may be much truth here:

"This life has been given you for repentance. Do not waste it on other things." - St. Isaac of Syria

"Now incline me to repent, let me now my sins lament,
now my foul revolt deplore, see, believe, and sin no more." -Charles Wesley (United Methodist Hymnal #355, v.5)

Amazing Grace

Last week some of us saw the new movie, Amazing Grace, about William Wilberforce and the anti-slave trade efforts of the Clapham Sect. Here is Christianity Today's review of the new film.
The movie is good, I'd say at least on par with last year's The Nativity Story. They did a great job of touching on the complex political realities of the day and keeping it engaging at that, as CT's reviewer says, "There's something to be said for a film that succeeds in making Parliamentary legislation suspenseful, even when you know the ultimate outcome." At times it seemed as though the film-makers went out of their way to have a character sing "Amazing Grace" in the film, which struck me as a little hokey at first, but then it is hard to make singing an 18th century Christian hymn a cappella very "hip," isn't it? And some parts were simply powerful. On the whole, I heartily recommend it. Oh, and there is also a love story that, unlike most of what we expose ourselves to in movies, is real.
Many of the issues touched on by the film are likely to touch a nerve with contemporary audiences. The film is, after all, about a group of Evangelical Christians who try to change the laws of their country to come more in line with their own Christian values. Sound familiar? What is really amazing, perhaps even miraculous, is that the presentation is sympathetic to their cause - it is the Abolition of slavery after all (if the movie had been about Prohibition, perhaps it would have been told differently).

So, of course this film raises many of the same questions that we are always raising (but not so often exploring very deeply or insightfully) in our own political situation - what is the relationship between faith and politics both for Christian citizens in a democratic system like ours and for the society as a whole. The characters in this film are quite openly attempting to "legislate morality" - what do we (as Americans or as Christians) think about that? Is there, for that matter, a such thing as legislation that does not represent somebody's morality? (If you read Gloria Deo much, you know I would answer with a resounding "NO")

I left the theater thinking that the movie might serve as an inspiration for all sorts of Christians (and perhaps others) all over the political spectrum to pursue their own agendas with renewed vigor.

Another sort of interesting background issue was floating around - most of the characters are Anglican Christians (and a few are even clergymen) who are trying to express Christian love towards the African peoples who are being exploited. Just last week the Anglican Primates (archbishops) of the "Global South" met to discuss the current crisis in the Anglican Communion, with African bishops being among the most outspoken defenders of orthodoxy over against the innovations of the US Episcopal Church and the laxity of the Church of England. What does it mean? I don't know - but it must mean something, and it reinforces how sad their current divide is.