Is the sun setting on the Church of my baptism? I am only 34 years old yet, in the few decades since my childhood, the Church of England has changed beyond recognition. Perhaps these facts (a list by no means exhausted) highlight what I mean:
1) The Prayerbook; Once a bedrock to unite diverse congregations, it has been replaced by the rather horrid ‘Comic… sorry ‘Common Worship’. Which far from uniting us (you are what you pray) actually promotes diversity and disunity.
2) scripture, reason and tradition; Once these were the driving force behind Anglican doctrine. Any innovation must be proven as in keeping with these three. But no more- since 1992 (the dawn of ‘women priests’) these have necessarily given way to ‘feelings, social justice and majority vote’.
3) Holy orders; The Church of my Baptism was recognisably Catholic and sacramental. It was built on the three fold order of Deacon, Priest and Bishop and in keeping with Rome and Constaninople. (Making reunification possible).Such orders, for reasons stated above, have now given way to a firmly protestant and ministerial model. Which makes authentic claims for Anglo-Catholicism increasingly difficult to justify.
4) Innovation; The C of E has never been short of radicals or cranks but in my youth such loons were held at bay and operated only on the extreme fringes, a position the faithful now occupy?! (As the Americans say- go figure!?) For today nuttiness and heresy is widely encouraged…just consider the Diocese of Sydney’s crackpot scheme to allow lay celebration, or the ghastly feminist liturgy highlighted last week, or the Consecration of Gene Robinson who abandoned his wife to shack up with a man. Never would this have happened – but all is tolerated….except obedience and faithfulness.
5) Generosity; It could be infuriating but the sincere ‘generosity’ of the Church was its greatest triumph. In my youth the Church afforded space to all her members- the ‘low and lazy’, the ‘broad and hazy’ and even us – the ‘high and crazy!’ There was room for everyone because we were held together by a common liturgy and a unified priesthood. But no longer- now we tear each other to shreds… how sad that the modern liberal heirarchy is so unlike the true liberals of old. For the new breed will stop at nothing until all are as ‘enlightened’ as they (ha ha) even if that involves eradication of Catholics and Evangelicals. A sad and sorry situation indeed.
And so to my chosen photograph- a melting ice cap in the sunset- the best analogy to sum up how I feel. The strong tundra on which I stood is melting at alarming rate… so that now I cling to a tiny fragment with fear and bewilderment. Faithful Christians are in danger of being thrown to the cruel Sea- how can this be? But perhaps my fear is unfounded…this is not necessarily the end- a ship might come to our rescue! We might even swim to the shore! But at present, that is not the pressing issue .
For now we must ask this- ‘Will there be a a sunrise?’ I do not want to be thrown from this iceburg -it is mine. I was born here, baptised here, taught the faith here, worshiped here, was confirmed here, deaconed and priested. I deserve to stay and so do you- my faithful readers. (And even some of those with whom I disagree- unless they are in deep heresy) So my brothers ans sisters in Christ what can we do to remain? Can we survive on the remnant that exists or build something greater?
Surely we must prepare for two situations? Our most pressing need is to refreeze this shifting and tumultous water surrounding us, firming up what has turned treacherous and fluid. The things that the wolves in the fold have clearly watered down. We do that by prayer and devotion, mission and evangelism- and a lot of hard work besides.
But we must also stand together lest the mission fails. We must price up the lifejackets, prepare the rafts and be ready to mobilise lest the terrible waves and storms of today come crashing in on us. (It may be God’s desire for our surrender) Such prayerful planning means that iif we ARE plunged into the icy waters- we can huddle together for warmth, ensuring that we will not die but make it safely to shore, or be rescued together and in number!
Will you join me in this excercise? Fighting spiritually for a future within the Church we love- but preparing for life without it should we not be offered the structural solution we need? For in reality I think it is the only option before us.
I realize that i am no doubt wasting my breath.
Bishop Robinson’s wife left him so that she could have a relationship with a heterosexual. He didn’t date for about 3 years after his divorce and didn’t meet his partner for 5.
Your repeating this trite line is just one more example of Anlgo-Catholics following Newman’s model of hurling ill formed invective at an opponent and not allowing facts to get in the way of them.
Firstly the precise ins and outs of Gene Robinson’s life do not in any way detract from the point of this post as far as I can tell.
Secondly- apologies for the less than accurate reflection BUT…heremains a Bishop who either a) lied on his wedding day and married under false pretenses or b) failed to nurture a marriage for life….we could forgive that I think but then he entered into a fully sexual relationship with a man, despite being in holy orders, and in contrary to the agreed standards of practice laid down by the Church…r€ furthermore he efuses to repent of this and is nevertheless consecrated. Not sure it is any better than the original point suggests…sorry. Can we really have Bishops living in non repentent public sin? It CLEARLY states in scripture that a Bishop is to be the husband of one wife….the bar is high for those who are to be fathers in God for the whole diocese…I cannot see much here to make your post anything other than a red herring to move us away from the subject in hand.
Not a red herring at all. I pointed out that your rhetoric outstripped the facts. I also pointed out that this is a tendency that Newman showed on a regular basis (ala his rejection of Hampdon based on not really understand the topic of scholastic theology). Part of my point is if you are going to make an accusation, make a fair and proper one, not one that plays well to the stalls.
As for the rest f what you say, you sound more like The bishop of Casae Nigra than one of those schooled in the theology of St Agustine. Or, am I to understand that he Council of Alres has no sway?
John- please stick to the points in hand and resist dragging the debate into uneccessary sideroads. The original post and points has nothing to do with Newman nor the Council of Alres nor S. Augustine.
I would add that personal insults to the bishop of Casae Nigra are off limits- poor soul would not want to be likened to me!!
You made a fair point regarding the timing of Bishop Robinson’s divorce prior to his engagment in an active homosexual union. I took the said point and also apologised.
However you then drag the debate down with very loose references to councils and saints that most readers here will know nothing about. for the record Newman was not some darstardly soul as you suggest but a man of sincere holiness soon to be canonised. In the same way Augustine would have more in common with orthdox reasserters than liberal reappraisers. To deny this is nonsensical.
So then- please stick to the point and be generous and your comments are welcome. Otherwise I shall pull the plug on them!
Quite frankly I think you’re a better candidate for Bishop than old Donatus. I doubt you’d go in for the forced rebaptism of villages. I was aiming at humor, something I’m repeatedly told I’m not that good at, but I soldier on.
Newman was a study in contrasts. The younger man could be exceedingly thin skinned and quick to a fight, something the older Prince of the Church was rueful in mentioning.
I apologize for getting side tracked, I tend to do that. I was actually moved by your piece for several reasons. I became a member of TEC when I was in seminary, so I have a different set of perspectives than you. If I may, I’ll try and respond to your reflection in order.
1- What, exactly, is so horrid about Common Worship? I mean the 1662 Prayer Book isn’t exactly an Anglo-Catholic (or even Reformed Catholic) friendly document. Unless I miss my guess, there were more using the (unofficial) Missal or the ’26 PB among the Catholic in the CoE than using the 1662 PB. Common Worship, by the way is heads and shoulders above the dreck that we get sent to look at from the Commission on Liturgy here in the States.
2- For someone who is too young to not know churches with out women clergy I’m always turned off by arguments that run along these lines. Theological spade work was and has been done on the topic, and I find the arguments against to be lacking. I also find the “justice” argument to be lacking. There has been reluctance, by all sides of many issues, to do serious theological work on any number of topics and that needs to be fixed. It also means that any one group has to admit that they may well have been wrong in any number of issues or ideas. Or we have times where we get “well sh*t we’re all wrong.” I think that it is a fear in many camps of the second that leaves us in circular arguments and sloganeering.
3- The mess that issues of Holy orders are in cuts across all lines and many are coming to see that there is an issue. I would argue that the advent of many programs designed to “help” the training of clergy have become an end unto them selves. Here in the US, CPE has such overtones. There is a sad lack of vision, and a tendency to be several steps removed from the realities of the vagaries of the Church’s life in the trenches, about the formation of clergy and the idea of what the Clergy are supposed to be doing. The lack of emphasis upon the idea of the sacred in the Ministry of the various Orders, as well as a warping of the idea of the sacraments has done a disservice to us all.
Then again, here in the States, we have seen the rise of a generation that defined (and still defines) it’s self in terms of rebellion. Now that they are in charge, they are dieing from analysis paralysis and process issues since they don’t know what to do any more. That is, however a separate rant.
4- This one is way too broad to get a response that is meaningful. I would toss out though that there is a distinct difference between something that we simply find esthetically displeasing and actually theologically wrong.
5- To this, I would gently remind that the vote in Synod came right after GAFCON, the discovery of meetings with Cardinal Kaspar, and a public statement that seemed tantamount to threatening to leave. Generosity of spirit can only be pressed to far and I gather there was a feeling of animosity generated that was unexpected. A friend of mine who was at Synod said that he felt that he was sick of lines in the sand, so he crossed the one just drawn. A toning down of rhetoric would help get people to hear why they should do something they find theologically repellant. That last bit is meant for all to pay close attention to, including myself.