THE DEFINITION OF INSANITY

from Midwest Conservative Journal by The Editor

That image on the left is known as a Klein bottle which isdefined as:

a one-sided figure consisting of a tapered tube the narrow end of which is bent back, run through the side of the tube, and flared to join the wide end, thereby allowing any two points on the figure to be joined by an unbroken line.

Mr. Burge recently added that it’s primary function “is to talk out of its own ass” which prompted me to think that maybe the Anglican Communion needs to ditch the Compass Rose and adopt this as its symbol. Ephraim Radner REALLY hopes that no Anglican primates skip the next Primates Meeting because what the Anglican Communion needs more than anything else right now is more face-to-face conversation:

But the shepherds of TEC are not alone in certain respects. We ought to raise some related concerns with those in e.g. Gafcon who have insisted on turning their backs upon the rest of the Communion as the latter tries, with its albeit messy and imperfect modes of engagement, to heal the Communion’s wounded order. “We will no longer go to meetings where TEC’s leadership is present; we will no longer participate in counsel where there are no certain means of following through with our decisions. We will instead go forward with our own ordering of the Church even as we further our own convictions.”

Dr. Radner continues to hold that charming conviction of his that if the Anglican Communion is allowed to fall to pieces, the cause of the Gospel will be seriously if not fatally weakened.

Kaveny’s strictures against the dangers of self-proclaimed prophethood apply in this direction too. How often have we not heard announcements of a “new Reformation”, of retrieving the heroic stands of Calvin and Luther before the world? To paraphrase, with a little self-mockery, Lloyd Bentson’s retort to Dan Quayle: “Martin Luther was a friend of mine; bishops, you are no Martin Luther”.

Maybe not. But they’re a whole lot closer to Calvin and Luther than certain Anglican institutionalists who constantly invent reasons to refuse to take actual stands about anything can ever hope to be.

And even if they were, is this what we really want, now devolved to an intra-Anglican conflict, while the world goes up in flames, and the scoffers of the Gospel look on with glee?

Or not particularly care one way or the other since there are far more powerful and effective Christian witnesses in the world what with much of Anglicanism having given up any serious interest in and engagement with the Gospel decades ago.

Even among “conservative” Anglicans, we are seeing Reformed and Catholic appeals to truth replaying themselves in the same impossible contradictions, as if the theologically impoverished Anglicanism of the 21st century – I characterize as broadly as possible here – could somehow avoid the pitfalls of 500 years of internecine Christian division where far greater Christian minds have failed. Is there nothing to learn from history?

Sure. Anglicanism has always been more of a religio-philosophical construct than a real church with a coherent theology. I guess what many in GAFCON are learning from history is that when some of the people with whom you allegedly share a Christian tradition start teaching a religion other than Christianity, theological and intellectual integrity requires you to seperate yourselves from them.

So, while TEC’s leadership would ignore Communion counsel altogether, some of our conservative leaders tell us, not that counsel should be ignored, but rather that counsel no longer offers hope at all.

Given the fact that the Communion has bent over backwards to avoid doing anything substantive about the Americans at all, I’d call that a particularly astute judgment.

But is this not a similar turning away from the power of God?

No. Sometimes it’s the other way around. You do remember what Christ said to the Laodiceans, don’t you, Doctor?

Let us be clear: the seeming effort or at least deliberated effect by Canterbury to place TEC’s participation in meetings like the Primates’ on the same level as all other representatives is an astonishing affirmation of contradictory moral integrities.

Gee. Ya think?!

It is as if at every gathering we are back to square one in the Communion on the matter of common teaching and discipline, and the very fundamental evangelical realities of Christian Scriptural witness that have been carefully articulated over and over remain constantly up for grabs. Our conservative leaders are completely right in objecting to this kind of “conciliar” rationale, and to object vigorously and unceasingly.

Insert “but” here.

But they should object face to face, not from a distance in a manner that has increasingly weakened the power of their personal testimony. What is one afraid of in going to meetings and engaging those who oppose us and the Gospel as we understand it? Yes, it costs money, and it might seem we are wasting it if… what? we are not listened to? if others do not keep their word? if, that is, things do not go as we want them to? Paul was willing to oppose Peter “face to face”; Paul was willing to go to Jerusalem to make his point (even though he claims he didn’t need to!); Paul continued to press and engage opponents of his form of Gentile mission (as well as of many other matters dear to him) over many, many years – opposition that continued in the wake of common decisions that should have settled the matter long before. Yet what? He returned to Jerusalem, after continuing over and over to work for the support of Christians there who had little sympathy for his vision. “I am ready not only to be bound but even to die in Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus!” (Acts 21:13). Foolish or hopeful? Jesus continued to meet the leaders of his people face to face, even on a cross, daring to say “they know not what they do”. There is no other standard.

On the surface, Radner has a point. But Radner forgets 1 Corinthians 5:9-11 which teaches us that as far as dealing with notorious sinners inside the Church was concerned, Paul eventually had a breaking point:

I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people.Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person.

Was Paul wrong to have written those words? Should the Apostle have urged the Corinthians to give such people more time to come to their senses? Apparently.

Instead, our shepherds here often provide little evidence that they have a sympathetic sense of the weakness of others, and that time – far more time than their own virtues might require – is needed.

How much time? We are entering the eighth year of the Current Unpleasantness. During that period, the Episcopalians have repeatedly been asked to refrain from certain actions and have repeatedly acted as though the rest of the Communion didn’t exist and that the Episcopal opinion on every issue was the only one that mattered.

The only reason why New York covets the Canterbury connection is for the “apostolic” legitimacy the connection conveys. Apart from that, TEO holds the other churches of the Communion in utter contempt. So why go through all this again?

And with this sense, they offer little encouragement to those taking steps, however small, in the direction of the Communion’s integral healing (e.g. the Church of England leadership in Synod). And this lack of encouragement is a blow to human hope, since, many (like myself) agree with much of the substance of their witness, but yearn for greater strength in the midst of difficult locales, which they seem instead to indicate are worthless places of ministry altogether.

There it is. If a 143-year-old organization is allowed to fly apart, Dr. Radner won’t be part of a really important international Christian grouping anymore. And that would be a blow to human hope or something since the success of the Gospel depends upon the continued existence of the Anglican Communion.

So for the sake of human hope, Christian Anglicans should forget what they learned years ago and remain connected with and continue to talk to people whose doctrines contradict everything they claim they believe. I don’t know how you can do that and continue to be able to look yourself in the mirror but I’m not an academic.