COMES THE DAWN

from Midwest Conservative Journal by The Editor

Don’t look now but a light bulb just turned on over the head of the Rev. Dr. Philip Turner:

Since the Standing Committee has decided that, in so far as it is concerned, TEC’s position in the Communion is to be decided through an indefinite period of dialogue, it is essential to understand just how TEC understands this process. TEC’s recent history makes one thing perfectly clear. Dialogue, for TEC, is not a process of disciplined argument designed to clarify issues, expose false reasoning, and arrive at a truth both parties can hold. It is not even a process of critical examination that occurs before taking a disputed action. Rather it is an aggressive form of self-promotion built around “talking points” rather than disciplined argument—talking points that are meant to beat down opposition to a disputed action already taken. In short, the decision made by the Standing Committee is in reality a decision to allow TEC more time to gain acceptance for its actions. It is not, in TEC’s mind, a time to subject those actions to “consequences” or to critical examination.

TEC’s recent history reveals that it now has a standard way of doing business—one that exposes its pleas for dialogue as disingenuous. What is that way? One makes changes in disputed aspects of the life and order of the church by breaking the rules and then calling for conversation rather than “consequences.” This standard way of doing business carries with it its own very idiosyncratic notion of dialogue–one that, by laying claim to the prophet’s mantle, will not allow the possibility that one could be wrong and one’s opponent right. When TEC acts, TEC acts (according to TEC) in the power of the Holy Spirit; and when TEC speaks, TEC speaks (according to TEC) in the power of the Holy Spirit. To be in opposition, therefore, is to oppose both the Holy Spirit and the justice it is God’s purpose to bring to the world. These are shocking conclusions but, given TEC’s recent history, they are unavoidable conclusions–conclusions that if ignored by the Instruments of Communion and the member Provinces, will lead to the demise of the Anglican Communion.

Say it with me.

GEE!! YA THINK?!!

What does Dr. Turner propose? Nothing in particular.

In short, TEC’s way of doing business is a prelude to making the Communion over in its own image. My prayer is that the leaders of our Communion, particularly the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Primates and the leaders of the Global South will recognize what is going on and take the steps necessary to sustain Anglicanism as a communion of churches. If the warning is ignored, the Anglican Communion will become a federation held together only by a rapidly fading historical memory and unstable and (sometimes) conflicting commitments to good works. My hope and prayer is that this warning will be heeded. When it comes to TEC’s way of doing business, let the buyer beware!

Suppose that all the Roman Catholic bishops in the United States lost their theological minds en masse and began encouraging the introduction of the sorts of theological innovations the Episcopal Organization has popularized.

Maybe Katharine Jefferts Schori is invited to preach, fully vested, in a Roman Catholic parish or cathedral as well as participate in the Mass. Maybe Gene Robinson is as well. Bishops proclaim that miracles in the Scripture really weren’t or smile and wink whenever Catholic doctrines like the Real Presence come up.

Perhaps Catholic priests and bishops start giving their blessing to pro-homosexual groups and causes, suggesting that church doctrine is wrong and needs to be rethought. Or maybe every abortion clinic in the country boasts of a Catholic chaplain while several of the most prominent bishops publicly “ordain” women.

And suppose that absolutely nothing is done about it.

Ever.

Which is a more reasonable response for the orthodox Roman Catholic: (1) long, scholarly papers regularly published in some Catholic journal or other, in effect saying again and again, “You can’t do that!! That isn’t Catholic doctrine!!” or (2) a phone call to a local Eastern Orthodox church to find out when services are?

I don’t know why articles like this one still irritate me but they do. Dr. Turner admirably states the problem; TEO has no intention of changing and no intention of admitting that it might possibly be wrong so “dialogue” and “conversation” are nothing more than weapons to break down all opposition to its religious innovations and inventions.

Yet rather than admitting what most intelligent Anglicans figured out five or six years ago, namely, that if what had been called the “Anglican tradition” is going to have a chance at survival, it must get clear of the morally and spiritually corrupt Western churches(even if that means cutting the Canterbury tie), Dr. Turner takes the idea of ever leaving TEO completely off the table.

Unlike Dr. Turner, I hate to keep repeating myself. But let’s run through this again. The Episcopal Organization knows it is breaking the “rules.” For two reasons, the Episcopal Organization doesn’t care if it is breaking the rules. One, of course, is that it thinks it’s “prophetic.” And two is that a lot of western liberal Anglicans agree with it and will never agree to sanction the Episcopalians in any meaningful way.

So Dr. Turner is left with hoping that…something happens. Or in a few more months, I guess, he’ll write yet another scholarly paper explaining how morally and spiritually corrupt TEO is and how something ought to be done about it, he’s just not quite sure what.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

UPDATE: Fred proves my point.

A proposal to separate The Episcopal Church (TEC) in the U.S. from the rest of the Anglican Communion has been rejected by the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion in London. Archbishop Fred Hiltz, primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, told the Anglican Journal that he finds this decision “encouraging” and a step towards healing.

Commenting on the meeting’s results, Archbishop Hiltz, said, “For lots of people, it’s very encouraging because there was a lot of anxiety…,” said Archbishop Hiltz of the standing committee’s decision. “… It’s pretty clear, in spite of a request that the Episcopal Church be [asked] to leave, that that was one voice and everybody else said, ‘No, that’s not the way forward.’ ”