Breaking the silence: a chance to teach

I realize that I’ve remained mostly silent on this weblog for several months now. That is because I don’t feel that I have had anything particularly constructive to add to the ongoing discussion and the worsening crisis in fellowship that is the Anglican Communion. Division - a division that may threaten to multiply itself along confessional or church parties, and a steady, almost ineluctable slide into apostasy (abandonment of apostolic faith and tradition) threaten the Churches of the Anglican Communion as never before. In the face of it all, I am largely silent. I haven’t even been sending out email news digests to friends and fellow parishioners of largely like-minded concerns, something that for several years (from October 2003) I did at least once, and sometimes several times, weekly.

But I am shaken from my silence by a chance to teach. (Or perhaps it’s just one of the trying parts of my personality - didacticism - that I cannot resist.)

Anglican Mainstream has picked up a news story from (the Revd Mr) George Conger, “US Bishops drop bid to have Robinson admitted to Lambeth Conference“. Much could be written about the news that Mr Conger shares in the article, but I am most interested in something of some theological weight; viz., why the Armenian Church and the Salvation Army are participating, when the celebrated “I’m not just the gay bishop” Gene Robinson of New Hampshire has been shut out of the decennial Lambeth Conference by not being invited, unlike every other bishop in The Episcopal Church.

The exclusion of Bishop Robinson raised an interesting issue, as the Salvation Army and the Armenian Church are full participants. The Salvation Army does not baptize and the Armenian Apostolic Church adheres to the miaphysitism [sic] where Christ is of one incarnate nature, where both divine and human nature are united.

(I presume that Mr Conger, a presbyter of the Church and seminary-educated, actually wrote “monophysitism”, and not “miaphysitism”, and that this is simply a typographical error. Edit (7/22/08): on reflection after George Conger commented in defense of the word, “miaphysitism” is precisely the word that should be used to describe Oriental Orthodox christology, as it is not an example of Eutychian monophysitism.)

The answer given by the Most Revd Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury and inviter-in-chief to the Lambeth affair, was direct and to the point:

“Ecumenical participants are here precisely on that ticket. They are representing their Churches as sisters in communion as friends. They are there because they are Armenian Orthodox or Salvation Army,” he said.

Bishop Robinson was a different matter. “The problem that we face within the Anglican Communion is that bishops gathering for the Lambeth Conference represent not only their diocese, but their participation in the fellowship of worldwide Anglican Christians. Where there are bishops whose participation in that worldwide fellowship is for one reason or another questionable that’s the reason for questioning their participation here.”

Initially, Dr Williams pointed out that he could “answer with a long disquisition on Armenian Christology, but I don’t think I don’t think that’s an option for this audience.”

Here’s a short disquisition on Armenian Christology, or at least on the differences between the monophysitism of the Oriental Orthodox Churches (of which the Armenian Church is one) and the duophysitism of the Roman Catholic Church and of the Orthodox Churches: for the most part, in successively issued joint statements over the past three decades or so, these ancient Churches have all recognized that the theological differences between them, both now and at the Council of Chalcedon, are largely semantic. No, not a matter of weaseling out of what was written in the fifth century and subsequently by these separated communities (the Catholic Orthodox Churches and the Oriental Orthodox Churches), but a recognition that both communities of Christians confess that Jesus Christ is

Perfect God as to his divinity, perfect man as to his humanity, his divinity is united to his humanity in the Person of the Only-begotten Son of God, in a union which is real, perfect, without confusion, without alteration, without division, without any form of separation.

(Common Declaration of John Paul II and Catholicos Karekin I, 1996)

Dialogue between the Orthodox Churches and the Oriental Orthodox Churches has produced substantive theologial statements about their unity in the faith and essential christological agreement, in both the First Agreed Statement of 1979 and the Second Agreed Statement of 1990.

So, as you discern by reading through these documents, there should be no theological reason that Anglicans , as catholic Christians who, though separated from their Catholic and Orthodox brethren by the 16th century schism, confess the orthodox faith of two natures united in one person, Jesus Christ, could not welcome in fellowship bishops, clergy and laity of the Armenian Church as brothers in Christ and sharers in councils of the Church.

Thoughts on the Communion Partners Plan

A friend struggling along with us in the current travails of the Anglican Communion and The Episcopal Church wrote me this morning to ask what I made of two recently-posted essays concerning the Communion Partners Plan. He wrote as a sort of afterward to a conversation we had earlier this week about the plan, during which we agreed that, while it makes little ecclesiological sense, the plan might provide some way for theologically conservative/orthodox Episcopalians to remain within their revisionist dioceses (like the Diocese of North Carolina), at least insofar as their rectors signed on as “Communion Partner rectors” who aligned themselves in some way with orthodox, or conservative, bishops in The Episcopal Church. To be sure, there is a good deal to be said for mutual support.

My initial thoughts on the essays, both posted on the website of the Anglican Communion Insitute, Inc., follow. Bear in mind that these are only the initial thoughts of a first read-through on a Friday afternoon. They are not meant to be considered as developed critique or argument.

1) In his essay, “Reflections on the Communion Partners Plan“, the Revd Mr Russell Levenson writes,

“We remain to say that the orthodox voice IS an authentic piece of the Anglican/Episcopal tapestry.”

“An authentic piece”? I find that strange phrasing - shouldn’t we work to make the orthodox voice THE warp and woof of the Anglican/Episcopal tapestry? (To continue Levenson’s mixed metaphor of voice and fabric.) I think that is precisely what the Global South, San Joaquin, Fort Worth, Pittsburgh, et al are wanting to do. And aren’t they right? Why should orthodox Anglicanism want to be part of a tapestry with pluralistic universalism, moral relativism and all the rest of the revisionist agenda? Shouldn’t orthodox Anglicans attempt to recover their true patrimony as heirs of the faith and practice of the undivided Church in England before the Great Schism? As the Revd Canon Arthur Middleton argued in his book, Fathers and Anglicans: The Limits of Orthodoxy, isn’t the true patrimony of the Anglican Churches to profess the faith - and to bear and to live all that profession entails - of the undivided Church, neither adding to nor subtracting from that faith?

This is not an argument for compelling anyone to leave, but rather an argument that, while individuals may dissent from that catholic faith and practice (as individuals so dissent in the Roman Catholic Church and, to a far lesser degree, in the Orthodox Churches), the warp and woof of the Anglican tapestry is catholic orthodoxy - and only catholic orthodoxy, generously understood in keeping with the patristic mind and the insights of later Christians theologians and their communities.

I admit that I still find arguments for remaining within The Episcopal Church at least intellectually compelling (if psychologically uncomfortable), perhaps not least because I also have no “plan B” and find myself strangely unwilling to leave a parish that is largely institutionalist, with revisionist and reasserter members who are quite cordial, all held together by a conservative rector who (unfortunately?) has no desire to rock the boat. However, there are significant silences in most arguments for staying. For example, none of the major figures advocating staying ever seems to want to address directly the issue that orthodox Anglicans who remain in The Episcopal Church will in the fullness of time find themselves without orthodox bishops (witness the struggle to get consents to Lawrence’s election in SC) and perhaps even without orthodox rectors (both because fewer clergy will be allowed in TEC from orthodox/conservative seminaries and because hostile revisionist bishops won’t consent to the election of conservative/orthodox rectors who might rock the revisionist boat). We could all go the way of Radner’s favored Jansenists, who admonished the Reformed Christians in France that it would have been better to have remained in the Church without faithful pastors than to have participated in schism.

It may well be that this is the more faithful path, though I have my doubts.

2) In “Communion Partners: A Means of Fellowship within the Anglican Communion“, the Revd Professor Christopher Seitz writes,

“Those anxious to signal their firm commitment to catholic Communion Anglicanism, and an alliance of differentiation and identification within The Episcopal Church, can avail themselves of this Plan.”

And I have to ask, “To what end?” In the first place, I’m not sure this actually is anything other than a psychological differentiation and self-identification within The Episcopal Church - in other words, will this plan really support catholic order and orthodox faith, or is it simply a dreamy fantasy of differentiation. Now that might be enough for a short time, but there has to be real substance to the differentiation for it to be sustainable. What ad hoc forms of resistance to the prevailing culture of TEC will this encourage or engender?

In the second place, what is the point of continued Communion alignment in differentiation from The Episcopal Church if TEC is never disciplined, if the communion-denying, independent and mutuality-denying actions of TEC are de facto accepted as part of “the Anglican tapestry”? I admit that if this were a holding position, something to keep us going until a communion-defining document (a covenant) were produced or a way of living discernment (robust conciliarism) were to develop that would bring the Communion together in a generously orthodox Anglicanism, while causing those who cannot profess and live such an orthodoxy to recuse or remove themselves from Communion membership, then that would be something. But the way that (the Most Revd Dr) Rowan Williams has acted, the way that Lambeth has been designed, the continued intransigence of TEC (with apparent impunity) and the various actions and pronouncements of other global northern Anglican Churches (and those global southern Anglican Churches dependent on the North, like Brazil) are leading me ineluctably to the rather pessimistic conclusion that The Episcopal Church will never be disciplined. What does remaining in communion with +Cantuar mean for conservative/orthodox Episcopalians when their revisionist bishops share precisely the same communion with the occupant of the See of Canterbury?

What sort of differentiation is that?

(Amended 6/07/08.)

Vatican: the time has come to choose

From the Catholic Herald, May 6:

The Vatican has said that the time has come for the Anglican Church to choose between Protestantism and the ancient churches of Rome and Orthodoxy.

Speaking on the day that the Archbishop of Canterbury met Benedict XVI in Rome, Cardinal Walter Kasper, the president of the Pontifical Council of Christian Unity, said it was time for Anglicanism to “clarify its identity”.

He told the Catholic Herald: “Ultimately, it is a question of the identity of the Anglican Church. Where does it belong?

“Does it belong more to the churches of the first millennium -Catholic and Orthodox - or does it belong more to the Protestant churches of the 16th century? At the moment it is somewhere in between, but it must clarify its identity now and that will not be possible without certain difficult decisions.”

He said he hoped that the Lambeth conference, an event which brings the worldwide Anglican Communion together every 10 years, would be the deciding moment for Anglicanism.

Cardinal Kasper, who has been asked to speak at the Lambeth Conference by the Archbishop of Canterbury, said: “We hope that certain fundamental questions will be clarified at the conference so that dialogue will be possible.

“We shall work and pray that it is possible, but I think that it is not sustainable to keep pushing decision-making back because it only extends the crisis.”

Read it all.

A new weblog for boreal Lutheranism

Dr William Tighe has put us onto a new weblog, Tentatio Borealis, whose author, Esko Murto, is a pastor in the Finnish Lutheran Church and part of the confessional movement in Finnish Lutheranism, connected with the Mission Province in Sweden. Pr Murto is currently a student at Concordia Theological Seminary in Fort Wayne, Indiana, a theological school of the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod.

From one of Pr Murto’s posts, is this ringing condemnation of all Protestant and Anglican (and Old Catholic) apostasy:

One thing is widely common to all apostasy: it can not bring itself to publicly confess that doctrine and faith have really been changed. The facade of confessions are kept up, the traditions and church history are highly revered, yes. Because in the end, Church which has given up the Word of God has no other force keeping it together than tradition and power.

How true, Pr Murto. How deeply, deeply true.

Catherine of Siena, 1380

Catherine Benincasa was the youngest of twenty-five children of a wealthy dyer of Siena. At six years, she had a remarkable vision that probably decided her life’s vocation. Walking home from a visit, she stopped on the road and gazed upward, oblivious to everything around her. “I beheld our Lord seated in glory with St Peter, St Paul, and St John.” She went on to say, later, that the Savior smiled on her and blessed her.

From then on, Catherine spent most of her time in prayer and meditation, despite her mother’s attempts to force her to be like other girls. To settle matters, Catherine cut off her hair, her chief beauty. The family harassed her continually; but in the end, convinced that she was deaf to all opposition, her father let her do as she would: close herself away in a darkened room, fast, and sleep on boards. Eventually, she was accepted as a Dominican postulant.

Catherine had numerous visions, and was also tried most severely by loathsome temptations and degrading images. Frequently, she felt totally abandoned by the Lord. At last, in 1366, she had a vision in which the Savior appeared with Mary and the heavenly host, and espoused her to himself, so ending her years of lonely prayer and struggle. She became a nurse, as Dominicans regularly did, caring for patients with leprosy and cancer whom other nurses disliked treating.

Opinion in Siena was sharply divided about whether she was a saint or a fanatic, but when the Bishop of Capua was appointed her confessor, he helped her win full support from the Dominican mother house. Catherine was a courageous worker in time of severe plague; she visited prisoners condemned to death; she constantly was called upon to arbitrate feuds and to prepare troubled sinners for confession.

During the great schism of the papacy, with rival popes in Rome and Avignon, Catherine wrote tirelessly to princes, kings, and popes, urging them to restore the unity of the Church. She even went to Rome to press further for the cause.

Besides her many letter to all manner of people, Catherine wrote a Dialogue, a mystical work dictated in ecstasy. Exhausted and paralyzed, she died at the age of thirty-three.

Adapted from Lesser Feasts and Fasts

Collect

Everlasting God, you so kindled the flame of holy love in the heart of blessed Catherine of Siena, as she meditated on the passion of your Son our Savior, that she devoted her life to the poor and the sick, and to the peace and unity of the Church: Grant that we also may share in the mystery of Christ’s death, and rejoice in the revelation of his glory; who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever. Amen.

The propers appointed for the commemoration of Catherine of Siena are published on the Lectionary Page.

Saint Mark the Evangelist

A disciple of Jesus, named Mark, appears in several places in the New Testament. If all references to Mark are accepted as referring to the same person, we learn that he was the son of a woman who owned a house in Jerusalem, perhaps the same house in which Jesus ate the Last Supper with his disciples. Mark may have been the young man who fled naked when Jesus was arrested in the Garden of Gethsemane. In his letter to the Colossians, the Apostle Paul refers to “Mark the cousin of Barnabas”, who was with him in his imprisonment. Mark set out with Paul and Barnabas on their first missionary journey, but he turned back for reasons which failed to satisfy Paul (Acts 15:36-40). When another journey was planned, Paul refused to have Mark with him. Instead, Mark went with Barnabas to Cyprus. The breach between Paul and Mark was later healed, and Mark became one of Paul’s companions in Rome, as well as a close friend of the Apostle Peter.

An early tradition recorded by Papias, Bishop of Hieropolis in Asia Minor at the beginning of the second century, names Mark as the author of the Gospel bearing his name. This tradition, which holds that Mark drew his information from the teaching of Peter, is generally accepted. In his First Letter, Peter refers to “my son Mark”, which shows a close relationship between the two men (1 Peter 5:13).

The Church of Alexandria in Egypt claimed Mark as their founder, first bishop and most illustrious martyr, and the great Church of San Marco in Venice commemorates the disciple who progressed from turning back while on a missionary journey with Paul and Barnabas to proclaiming in his Gospel Jesus of Nazareth as Son of God, and bearing witness to that faith as friend and companion to the apostles Peter and Paul.

Adapted from Lesser Feasts and Fasts

Collect

Almighty God, by the hand of Mark the evangelist you have given to your Church the Gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God: We thank you for this witness, and pray that we may be firmly grounded in its truth; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

The propers for the commemoration of Saint Mark the Evangelist are published on the Lectionary Page website.

Mellitus, Archbishop of Canterbury, 624

A Roman abbot of noble birth, Mellitus was sent by Pope Gregory the Great to England at the head of a group of missionaries in 601, to reinforce the work of Augustine of Canterbury. After his departure Gregory sent him a famous letter which modified his previous ruling to Augustine concerning pagan places of worship. Gregory now told Mellitus to tell Augustine not to destroy the temples of the Saxons but only their idols. The pagan places of worship should be converted into churches and their feasts taken over and directed to Christian purposes.

In 604 Augustine consecrated Mellitus missionary bishop of the East Saxons, with his see at London, where Ethelbert (king of Kent and overlord of southern England) cause the first Church of St Paul to be built for the new bishop. As bishop of London, Mellitus traveled to Rome to consult with Pope Boniface the Fourth about the Church in England, taking part while there in a synod of Italian bishops concerning the monastic life and their relations with bishops. Several years into his episcopate, evangelization of the East Saxons was arrested when Sæberht, the Christian king of the East Saxons, died, and his three pagan sons succeeded him and expelled Mellitus. The occasion for this was said to be Mellitus’ refusal to give holy communion to the unbaptized princes. With this reversal in Essex came a corresponding and greater setback to missionary work in Kent on the death of king Ethelbert, Mellitus and another bishop, Justus, retired to Gaul. On the conversion of the new king, they were recalled to England by Laurence, archbishop of Canterbury. Lacking the support of a strong Christian ruler, Mellitus was unable to return to London and the East Saxons. In 619 he succeeded Laurence as archbishop of Canterbury and carried out his ministry ably despite chronic debility from gout. Mellitus died on this day in 624 and was buried near Augustine in the abbey Church of Saints Peter and Paul in Canterbury.

Prepared from various sources.

The Collect

O God, our heavenly Father, who raised up your faithful servant Mellitus, to be a bishop and pastor in your Church and to feed your flock: Give abundantly to all pastors the gifts of your Holy Spirit, that they may minister in your household as true servants of Christ and stewards of your divine mysteries; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

The image supra is of the Saint Mellitus window in the parish Church of St Mary’s Prittlewell.

Mellitus, Archbishop of Canterbury, is commemorated in the sanctoral calendar of the Church of England.

The General Convention is the Magisterium

If any doubted the tendencies of revisionist Episcopalians to invest the General Convention with absolute magisterial authority, then let them consider this statement from Bonnie Anderson, President of the House of Deputies of the General Convention of The Episcopal Church:

“In the Episcopal Church the belief that God speaks uniquely through bishops, laity, priests and deacons, enables our participatory structure and allows a fullness of revelation and insight that must not be lost in this important time of discernment,” Anderson wrote. “The joint work of the House of Deputies and the House of Bishops is the highest institutional expression of this belief….”

Quoted from here.

Regarding the magisterium, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.

Ms Anderson’s statement goes well beyond what the Catholic Church teaches, because while the Roman Magisterium interprets the Word of God (Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture), the Episcopalian construal apparently creates a magisterium as an independent authority, uniquely (and directly, without the intermediaries of Holy Scripture and catholic Tradition?) receiving God’s Word (”God speaks uniquely”). Perhaps she has only written clumsily, but the actions of The Episcopal Church’s General Convention over the past several years lead me to believe that she has written precisely what revisionists believe.

Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1109

Anselm was born in Italy about 1033 and took monastic vows in 1060 at the Abbey of Bec in Normandy. He succeeded his teacher Lanfranc as Prior of Bec in 1063, and as Archbishop of Canterbury in 1093. His episcopate was stormy, in continual conflict with the crown over the rights and freedom of the Church. His greatest talents lay in theology and spiritual direction.

As a pioneer in the scholastic method, Anselm remains the great exponent of the so-called “ontological argument” for the existence of God: God is “that than which nothing greater can be thought.” Even the fool, who (in Psalm 14) says in his heart “There is no God,” must have an idea of God in his mind, the concept of an unconditional being (ontos) than which nothing greater can be conceived; otherwise he would not be able to speak of “God” at all. And so this something, “God,” must exist outside the mind as well; because, if he did not, he would not in fact be that than which nothing greater can be thought. Since the greatest thing that can be thought must have existence as one of its properties, Anselm asserts, “God” can be said to exist in reality as well as in the intellect, but is not dependent upon the material world for verification. To some, this “ontological argument” has seemed more deductive rationalism; to others it has the merit of showing that faith in God need not be contrary to human reason.

Anselm is also the most famous exponent of the “satisfaction theory” of the atonement. Anselm explains the work of Christ in terms of the feudal society of his day. If a vassal breaks his bond, he has to atone for this to his lord; likewise, sin violates a person’s bond with God, the supreme Lord, and atonement or satisfaction must be made. Of ourselves, we are unable to make such atonement, because God is perfect and we are not. Therefore, God himself has saved us, becoming perfect man in Christ, so that a perfect life could be offered in satisfaction for sin.

Undergirding Anselm’s theology is a profound piety. His spirituality is best summarized in the phrase, “faith seeking understanding.” He writes, “I do not seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe in order that I may understand (credo ut intelligam). For this, too, I believe, that unless I first believe, I shall not understand.”

Adapted from Lesser Feasts and Fasts.

Collect

Almighty God, you raised up your servant Anselm to teach the Church of his day to understand its faith in your eternal Being, perfect justice, and saving mercy: Provide your Church in every age with devout and learned scholars and teachers, that we may be able to give a reason for the hope that is in us; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, on God, for ever and ever. Amen.

The propers for the commemoration of Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury, are published on the Lectionary Page website.

The image supra is an icon of Anselm with Archbishop Lanfranc and Our Lady of Bec, in Canterbury Cathedral.

The nature of the Resurrection event

If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. (1 Corinthians 15.17)

[T]he resurrection of Jesus is to be thought of as the recreating and restoring of man into the same sphere of real being as that to which we human creatures belong, and is, as such, an historical happening in continuity with the whole historical happening of Jesus, the incarnate Son. If the resurrection is not an event in history, a happening with the same order of physical existence to which we belong, then atonement and redemption are empty vanities, for they achieve nothing for historical men and women in the world. Unless the atonement through the resurrection breaks into, and is real in, our historical and physical existence and continues to be valid as saving power in our earthly and temporal being, it is ultimately a mockery. That is why all docetic conceptions of the risen Christ are quite irrelevant to men and women of flesh and blood, and have no message to offer them in their actual existence. It is for this reason that eschatology, with the heart taken out of it in the denial of a genuine resurrection, is meaningless, and without relevance to the on-going life of the world. Everything depends on the resurrection of the body, otherwise all we have is a Ghost for a Saviour.

Space, Time and Resurrection, Thomas F. Torrance, p. 87