Well, no. Blame the present troubles in the Anglican Communion on the ordination of the first openly gay and partnered bishop in the Anglican Communion, if you will, but you will be wrong. And pay close attention to the word "openly", for Bishop Gene is not the first partnered gay bishop.
The Episcopal Church has been in the naughty chair, or as we say here in the US, in time-out, at least since 1998, when Pete Broadbent wrote from an evangelical perspective in praise of Gareth Bennett's Preface to the 1988 edition of Crockford's Clerical Directory. I could not find the text of Bennett's Preface to the 1988 edition online.
Broadbent states:
Catholic Anglicans are far more preoccupied than Evangelicals with the vagaries of certain parts of the Anglican Communion. New Directions frequently carries news of the latest Spong-related horror story from the Episcopal Church in the USA, with the implicit assumption that what happens in that church today is bound to infiltrate these shores sooner or later.
....
Bennett devoted three pages of his preface to ECUSA, and concluded that the Lambeth Conference of 1988 [convened by Archbishop of Canterbury Robert Runcie] would decide to resolve the American Anglican "crisis" by doing nothing. In this he was proved correct. There is, of course, an alternative course of action for those who believe that Spong and others like him are beyond the pale. It would run contrary to catholic principle, but it would be consistent with the practice of the New Testament Church. To dissociate the rest of the Anglican Communion from ECUSA until it deals with the various cuckoos in its nest would be a powerful statement that the Anglican Communion is more interested in Trinitarian orthodoxy than societally-driven liberal whim. ECUSA is anyway over-represented at Lambeth, and exerts an influence way beyond its global significance.
Evangelical Anglicans, with their more pragmatic ecclesiology, are not in any event as concerned with the unity of worldwide Anglicanism as are Catholic Anglicans. Many of us would prefer to be Presbyterian or Baptist when sojourning in the USA. Bennett's questions about the coherence of the Anglican Communion are, for many of us, part of a bigger issue which puts a premium on Christian orthodoxy above denominational preference. This has particular implications for the UK Christian scene, and to this I will return.
Since 1998 and even before, it seems that the Episcopal Church in the US has been a problem for Evangelicals, as well as Anglo-Catholics, in the Church of England. So. The "Spong-related horror stories" started it all - the "infamous" Bishop Jack Spong?
Well, no, not really. The trouble started from the beginning of the history of the Church of England, when it declared itself free of the authority of the Church of Rome. Anglicans have always been a contentious lot who managed to live together in tension for over 500 years.
Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics and, indeed, all of us of any persuasion of Anglicanism, need to read our church history, which, in early days, was written in blood. And we need to learn from history not to repeat the mistakes of the past.
Huge thanks to Poppy Tupper at The George Carey Fan Club for his post titled "A long campaign of hate and exclusion" and for the links. Poppy advised me, "Have a gin and sit down before you read them!!" I was still drinking my tea when I began to read, but, once I started, I wish I'd sloshed a bit of gin into my tea.
A link to further commentary on the Preface in 1997 from Geoffrey Rowell, Bishop of Basingstoke.
I grieve that the Preface affair culminated in the tragic suicide of Gareth Bennett.
Image from Wikipedia.
Oh my. Excellent.
ReplyDeleteThank you Grandmere....
Margaret, you're welcome. Makes you sit up a little straighter, doesn't it?
ReplyDeleteThe '98 Broadbent piece reads like bog-standard anti-(US)Americanism.
ReplyDeleteThe irony: (US)Americans DID become far MORE involved at Lambeth '98, and after . . . but of course those were anti-TEC Americans! O_o
[I think a lot of bishops in the AC saw Spong's book sales in the 1990s, and thought "Why isn't that me?!"---and have been beating up on him, and by extension the rest of TEC (regardless of how WE felt about Spong), ever since!]
I think a lot of bishops in the AC saw Spong's book sales in the 1990s, and thought "Why isn't that me?!
ReplyDeleteUh-huh. You could be right, JCF.
Bishop Spong has just reminded his critics about why they hate him, but Bishop Pike was there first.
ReplyDelete(Spong's Manifesto is on line on its own website, but I link to the Integrity citation of it because it's easier to read.)
Spong, Pike, and the largely traditional John Robinson were more popularizers than pioneers, but they brought the commonplaces of the seminary to the attention of pew dwellers.
I might have added that I usually agree with the information that Bishop Spong projects, but he tends to stand in front of the screen. Pike was on a personal journey. His position in the church was a distraction.
ReplyDeleteMM, I could have mentioned Bp. Pike, too. I wasn't even close to being interested in anything having to do with the Episcopal Church back then, but I remember the fuss over Bp. Pike.
ReplyDeleteI'd read Bp. Spong's Manifesto, but I read it again. Thanks. It is good.
There will always be those in the church who seem like distractions, but perhaps they are around for good reasons.
There are many who demand that clergy teach and exemplify nothing but "the faith once delivered to the saints" -- i.e., their grandfathers. James Pike'S would have been an interesting story had he been on a quest as an individual, but no, he was a bishop, charged with repeating the standard theology books. The latest cleric to fall to the demands for orthodoxy was Kevin Thew Forrester. He might have got by had he let his devotions languish, but no, he practiced Zen meditation, and his critics savaged him as a crypto-Buddhist. One might suspect Rowan Williams as another victim, forced to speak an orthodoxy at odds with his learning and his intellect.)
ReplyDeleteThe Pew Religious Forum had a meditation on this dilemma awhile back. It's certain that no new answers will be found for current difficulties if all the approaches are dictated in advance (and from an age of failed paradigms).