Hi, Gabe!
First, I appreciate your thoughtful post on all of this. It's a mess, and you address the messiness of it forthrightly and with a lot of care.
It's this statement that stands out to me: "It seems to me that by far the best course would be for the entire parish to leave TEC and join ACNA. But that is not going to happen. "
I would say: it's not going to happen if those of us who think it's the best course of action stay quiet about that.
Also, if you do think it's the best course of action (and I agree with you), and if it doesn't happen (which, as you say, it hasn't), you're automatically left with choosing a second-best action.
For me, it comes down to a logical impossibility: if BlSac stays in TEC, I can't get out of TEC without leaving BlSac. If you think of it as a Venn diagram, you'll see what I mean. If BlSac is in TEC, and you're in BlSac, you're in TEC. You're in a parish that doesn't like being in TEC, sure, but you're in TEC.
You ask, "But how do I, as a member of Blessed Sacrament, align myself with ACNA?" I would answer: you can't. At least, you can't if by "aligning" you mean "joining" in any real sense. "Supporting" or "complimenting" might be better terms.
I wish it were possible to do both, but I really don't think it is. And even if you're right, that ACNA is on the rise and TEC is on the decrease (and you probably are right), I think BlSac is not going to survive that transition. If it stays orthodox, it's eventually going to get squashed by TPTB. If it compromises . . . well, then it won't be the parish we know and love.
We are already restricted and bound about, unable to ordain, unable to be heard, pouring our money into a building that is eventually just going to enrich the coffers of the Diocese of Los Angeles, playing the part of the pet orthodox parish that can be pointed to as an example of how inclusivity of doctrine really works!
In other words, it is through the red doors. We can fight now or fight later . . . it sounds weird, but right now, the best thing I can do for BlSac is go to ACNA. There've been canaries in the coal mine before me, but maybe if there are enough of us, people will hear and be able to get out in time.
Not an ideal solution, but not an ideal situation.
Anyway, again, I appreciate reading your thoughts on all of this. Thanks again for writing them out.
Jess,
it's not going to happen if those of us who think it's the best course of action stay quiet about that.
I don't know how much you've talked to people that are staying, but from my experience they have legitimate differences with us about the proper Christian response to heresy. It's not that they are ignorant of the reasons some of us have for wanting to leave and it's not because they haven't been alerted to the direction that the leadership of TEC is heading.
I think our core disagreement is over ecclesiology. You're presenting this as a church-membership decision: either we're a part of the (non-Christian, heretical) church TEC, or we are a part of the orthodox church ACNA.
I don't see it that way. I think TEC is a church, it's just a church with almost entirely vacant leadership. The question for me is not "how can I leave this heretical church?", but "how can I repudiate the heretical leaders of this church?"
And I think that question has many more possible answers than "what church should I belong to?" Sure, full fellowship with an ACNA parish would be best. But if I attend a TEC church whose priest has emphatically rejected the authority of his bishop when he departs from orthodoxy, who lets several ACNA priests serve and even consecrate the elements, who is re-branding the church as a joint ACNA/TEC parish, and if I associate myself on a part-time basis with a parish or priest in full communion with ACNA, does that count as repudiating the heretical leadership of TEC? I think it does.
I think BlSac is not going to survive that transition. If it stays orthodox, it's eventually going to get squashed by TPTB. If it compromises . . . well, then it won't be the parish we know and love.
I agree with you. This is not a long-term solution. My worst fear is that FD will be replaced by someone just unheretical enough to keep about half of the members from leaving. It's just the kind of thing the devil would do. On the other hand, 815 is not known for subtlety.
But I don't feel the need to leave now because of what might happen in 5 or 6 years when FD and +Bruno retire. If and when that happens, I will just start attending (say) the Gathering every Sunday instead of every other Saturday evening. Sure I will mourn the loss of anyone who stays behind, but no more than I would mourn them if I left today.
Thanks for replying. I'll try to take your points one at a time.
First you say, "I don't see it that way. I think TEC is a church, it's just a church with almost entirely vacant leadership. The question for me is not "how can I leave this heretical church?", but "how can I repudiate the heretical leaders of this church?""
I suppose it does come down to your definition of "church". If apostolic authority is held by those who teach what the apostles taught (the traditional Anglican - though not Anglo-Catholic - view), then our bishops don't have apostolic authority. I think TEC is a church, but I don't think it's a Christian one - at least not if you define it by its leadership. I'd be interested in hearing alternate definitions, though - I'm sure there are some!
Then I'd say: I don't think you can repudiate the leaders except by removing yourself from under their leadership. Not in any effective sense anyway, and I admit, I have a great love of the practical.
I think that's actually where our disagreement is. I see the ACNA support as turning our heads in the right direction, but not as actual action.
For instance, I think the rebranding of BlSac as an ACNA/TEC parish is an impossibility. It sounds nice, but it has no substance. In a church with an episcopate, you can't be under two sets of bishops. Even the DEPO bishops are, in the end, under Schori. We can call ourselves ACNA till we're blue in the face, but if we're still in a TEC parish, well, we're TEC. It's more like taking a lover than divorcing and remarrying, you know? You might call yourself by your lover's last name, but you're still married to the other guy.
(Okay, forgive me if that metaphor's a little crass - it's what occured to me, and I think it holds up pretty well.)
Actually, thinking about that metaphor a bit more, I think it explains part of why this is so hard: it is that sort of thing. It is like breaking up a family. The only difference is that when you divorce, you have the option of remaining unmarried, whereas Christians don't have the option of remaining out of church.
Also, it isn't quite like divorce, either, given the nature of ACNA. I've been reading about AMiA, and one of the things Kolini said the Griswald, back in the day, was that in Africa, when a child runs away from his family, the relatives keep the child with them till a reconciliation can be made. And AMiA was their version of providing that shelter.
So leaving TEC is like leaving the abusive home, and ACNA are the grandparents taking you in. (All still in the Anglican family, right?)
But you can't actually be at home and at your grandparents' at the same time.
What you say here, "But I don't feel the need to leave now because of what might happen in 5 or 6 years when FD and +Bruno retire" is the other place we really disagree, I think. You find the situation within the walls of our parish still acceptable; I don't.
Jess,
I think the Anglican option is a better idea than you do (more on that below), but the primary reason I'm staying at BSac is that this question of how best to respond to systemic heresy is, as I see it, a relatively minor one theologicaly. No church council has pronounced on it. It isn't a part of core Christian orthodoxy or "Mere Christianity". Faithful Christians can disagree about it. So I'm not willing to break fellowship with an orthodox parish and a faithful priest because of it. The extremely high cost does not justify the benefit, in my opinion.
If apostolic authority is held by those who teach what the apostles taught (the traditional Anglican - though not Anglo-Catholic - view), then our bishops don't have apostolic authority. I think TEC is a church, but I don't think it's a Christian one - at least not if you define it by its leadership.
I agree that apostolic authority is not held by most TEC bishops. And I'm not defining TEC by its leadership. I think TEC is a church for the same reason that I think the early church didn't stop being Christian when it was mostly Arian. Fr. David has said "The church belongs to God, not General Convention", and I'm in complete agreement about that.
In a church with an episcopate, you can't be under two sets of bishops.
Here's another disagreement. As I said in my post, a diocese with a heretical bishop is a diocese without a bishop. In order for me not to be under +Bruno's authority, I just have to recognize that his seat is vacant. And I think I can cement that by associating myself, to the degree possible, with ACNA.
ACNA is attractive to me because it is better to have an orthodox bishop than no bishop, but not because I think the current leaders of TEC are pulling me or my parish away from Christ by their actions.
I've been reading about AMiA, and one of the things Kolini said the Griswald, back in the day, was that in Africa, when a child runs away from his family, the relatives keep the child with them till a reconciliation can be made. And AMiA was their version of providing that shelter.
I'm glad to hear that, because it's also how I think of AMiA and ACNA.
So leaving TEC is like leaving the abusive home, and ACNA are the grandparents taking you in. (All still in the Anglican family, right?)
For me, it would be more like leaving a loving home (BSac) because of an argument with your extended family.
"Here's another disagreement. As I said in my post, a diocese with a heretical bishop is a diocese without a bishop. In order for me not to be under +Bruno's authority, I just have to recognize that his seat is vacant."
I'm curious as to how you think that works. I mean, it sounds like all that needs to happen is "fiat Gabriel" or "Gabriel volt!" and hey-presto, Bruno's not the Bishop of Los Angeles anymore. Where do you get the authority to make his authority disappear? Have the canons been rewritten lately?
Also, in your previous comments, you note that submission to authority (in this case, Fr. David's) is an important reason for remaining. I don't see how this can be true, if you see yourself as having the power to declare who does and doesn't have authority. If you are able to decide who does and doesn't have authority aren't you, in the end, just submitting to yourself?
If authority rests on the office, then Bruno has authority, and that authority is over Fr. David and hence over you. If authority rests on teaching what the apostles taught, then Bruno doesn't have authority, and yet you are submitting to his authority anyway by staying in his church. (Again, because Fr. David is submitting to his authority, and you are putting yourself under Fr. David.)
I guess I just don't think you can have it both ways: I don't think you can value and devalue authority at the same time.
This seems to me to be linked to the biggest logical problem of the idea of the diversified parish: its existance depends solely on words. It exists because we're saying it exists, not because it matches up with any external reality. We say that we're Episcopal and ACNA and Roman Catholic. But we're not ACNA and we're not Roman Catholic. If we were ACNA, we'd be being sued for our property right now. If we were Roman Catholic, we'd be obeying the Pope. (And encouraging Roman Catholics to take communion at an Episcopal church is very much NOT obeying the Pope.) Saying "the sky is green" doesn't make it green. Saying that we're a diversified parish doesn't make us one. All it makes us is very confused Episcopalians. And it's not like the world needs more of those. 
Where do you get the authority to make his authority disappear? Have the canons been rewritten lately?
I don't think I'm making his authority disappear, I think I'm recognizing that it has disappeared. This is about something more important than the canons. The office of bishop is a spiritual office, not primarily a political one. A bishop stands as a successor to the apostles, and I think if he rejects the apostle's teaching and breaks his consecration vow to uphold it then he forfeits his authority as bishop. This is true even if he is not formally deposed according to the canons because his authority comes from God, not the canons. Deciding exactly what does and does not constitute "rejecting the apostles teaching" is difficult, but our case is not a gray area in my opinion.
That's the difference between +Bruno and Fr. David: I don't agree with everything that Fr. David does, but he has clearly been faithful to the gospel and the faith handed down by the apostles.
If authority rests on teaching what the apostles taught, then Bruno doesn't have authority, and yet you are submitting to his authority anyway by staying in his church.
We seem to be going in circles . The church belongs to God, not General Convention. It is +Bruno who has left the church, in the most important sense.
I guess I just don't think you can have it both ways: I don't think you can value and devalue authority at the same time.
I am valuing apostolic authority and rejecting the validity of heretical authority. I think that is a consistent position.
This seems to me to be linked to the biggest logical problem of the idea of the diversified parish: its existance depends solely on words. It exists because we're saying it exists, not because it matches up with any external reality.
"Only in words" is not the only alternative to "external". I agree that the Anglican Option group won't be "members" of ACNA in the fullest sense. But we'll be (literally) in communion with ACNA, and we'll be pointing to ACNA as a replacement for the vacant leadership in TEC. I think that's the best option I have under the circumstances.
(And encouraging Roman Catholics to take communion at an Episcopal church is very much NOT obeying the Pope.)
This is tangential, but I don't think Fr. David has ever done this (although he does allow Roman Catholics to take communion if they want to). A couple weeks ago (I don't think you were there) he made more or less the opposite point, that we need to respect the table division that exists between the two churches.
Gabe, I really appreciate this post, and I really appreciate your and Emily's willingness to be in the tension of "we love this community and value being part of it, but we also can't stand the heresy." I think Daniel and I feel the same tension.
I also agree with you about feeling afraid that FD will be replaced by someone who's a good "compromise" between orthodoxy and heresy, and that our parish will somehow "not notice" and get led away from truth. However, I keep hearing God's call to me personally to stay present. At present, that is not happening. At present, I believe I am in fellowship with other orthodox Christians at BSac, and being served communion by imperfect, but orthodox, priests. I respect and admire FD's calling to stand as a witness to the truth, and am waiting to see how the wider church will respond to some of the strokes BSac plans to take this summer (FD's article and some of the outreach efforts at General Convention). I also am awaiting GenCon's statements and decisions (honestly I believe they will only worsen our church's plight, but I feel God is telling me to wait and see, and not make up my mind beforehand).
At the same time, I really hear some Anglican Option-ers' sense that God is calling them to plan for the future, and actually feel grateful that God would prepare the way for us (potentially) to stay together as a fellowship if (God forbid) BSac should get ousted. I have heard their desire to build a bridge, as it were, or a lifeboat, that perhaps when/if things do fall apart, there will be something built that will allow BSac'ers to come to a new building/community that has some establishment already. I think it would be absolutely wonderful (not to mention God-glorifying) if our parish community were able to largely stay together through such a transition. If no way is prepared, it seems most likely that everyone will scatter to other churches, and I think that would be really really sad. Tragic even. I think that is the breaking of fellowship that is Satan's delight, and I would love it if God were making a way for that not to happen. I think that is why I have decided to support these bridge-building Anglican Option-ers as fully as I can (including participation as I am able in new worship times, etc, while staying primarily at BSac ourselves) - because while I myself do not feel called to build the bridge, I believe God is calling some to that task, and I believe in the task and want to help those called to it.
Jess, I can appreciate and respect (truly) it if your family feels called NOT to help build the bridge, but I don't think I agree with some of the points you were making here, and wanted to mention a few. For one, I don't think I see the situation as coming down to *simply* a logical impossibility in a Venn diagram, because I think there are other (albeit not as black-and-white) options that allow one to stand uprightly and still maintain fellowship with a community of pe
(uh... sorry Gabe, I think this will take a few posts. Hope this isn't considered rude to say so much on someone else's blog in the blogosphere...)
...still maintain fellowship with a community of people who *are* orthodox in their beliefs, than simply leaving BSac. Humans are messy creatures, and therefore human institutions (and how we interact with them) will of necessity be messy as well. I feel that it isn't so much about "which roster is my name on." (Though this is of significance, I believe there are other significant things to consider as well.) Equally important is the question: "what is the character and the specific decisions of the person/priest I am taking communion from? WHY is he staying under the authority of the bishop he is staying under? Is he agreeing with this bishop that the heresy is truth? Or is He staying a part of this body to hopefully change it?" For example, Jesus did not "leave" the Jewish people, even though they missed the truth by a LOT. Rather, He stayed among them to witness to them. He didn't instruct His disciples to abandon Israel after His death, even though this was shaky ground (would they retain the Truth He'd taught them? Or would they be overwhelmed by the power of the Jewish authorities?). He taught them to live differently, and not to let the Jewish authorities change how they (the disciples) behaved, but He did not specify that they needed to dissociate themselves from the synagogues or places of worship. I'm not saying we should build the church solely on the manner in which Jesus sent out His diciples, but is there a reason that this situation is different from how Jesus handled the situation of corrupt authority in His own "Church" or people?
On a similar note, you said, "If we were ACNA, we'd be being sued for our property right now. If we were Roman Catholic, we'd be obeying the Pope," while making the point that the existence of a diversified parish does not match up with external reality. But if I were a follower of Christ, wouldn't I obey God perfectly? I don't, but I still believe that God calls me His own, and sees me as His follower. Don't you? Many of these "identity" issues are not as black and white as that, nor can we call them "done" at any given moment. We don't necessarily have the full picture of what will happen, in the present moment. Just because a fact does not currently match up with the external reality of my daily life, this doesn't mean that it is not true. The diversified parish exists because it exists, even if it doesn't fit inside a label perfectly. Maybe we are making mistakes along the way, but it doesn't mean we aren't following God. Often, I believe external reality does NOT match up with a truth, because it is aligning one way or the other over time. Yes, this means we have to live with the tension of, "Which way is it aligning? Am I truly becoming more like Christ? Or not? Is this church truly heading toward the truth, or are
...Is this church truly heading toward the truth, or are we becoming tainted by the heresy around us?" But I think this tension is part of what we have to learn to be in, due to the way nature of life on this earth.
I also don't believe that a church is defined by its leadership. I like Gabe's reference to the early church continuing to be Christians, even while it was mostly Arian. I believe a church is defined by its entire population, even while the leadership hold extra responsibility before God and can influence the entire population perhaps more strongly than anyone else. I think viewing the church as the leadership alone is reminiscent of the tragic corruption of what happened with Rome back several centuries ago, pre-Gutenberg press, when no one knew anymore what was being said in Latin in the church services, but just trusted that the priests were doing it for them. I think that's a sad view of Christianity. Jess, I don't think that's what you are advocating, but I do believe that your view is heading down that road.
I also dont' think I understand your lover/husband analogy. If your heart is truly with your lover and you truly don't faithfully love your spouse anymore, isn't this of some substance? It sounds like you are saying that the affair is of no substance, simply because the woman still bears the husband's name, and I just can't agree with you there. Yes, the marriage still matters, but so does the lover relationship. It's not *just* about labels and technicalities on paper. Actual beliefs, actions, etc. do also have substance and weight. Likewise with the beliefs of FD and BSac, despite the formal alignment with TEC.
Jess, you also mentioned that Gabe said that "submission to authority (in this case, Fr. David's) is an important reason for remaining." Gabe, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that you were saying submission to authority is his reason for staying. At least for me, when I hear Gabe say "this question of how best to respond to systemic heresy is, as I see it, a relatively minor one theologicaly", what I think is, "Yes, I agree - love and acting that out in relationships is also a theological matter. Breaking fellowship with an orthodox parish and a faithful priest is a very high cost indeed, and needs to be considered at least as much as the cost of staying 'within' a heretical church." For me, how I handle the loving father relationship I have with FD, and the relationships I have with our parishioners is also a theological matter. I don't think it's just about "submission to authority," but how do I make a decision that also honors the loving relationships I have built with these people? I think the answer to this "how" question involves how we deal with our feelings about the relationships we've built, and how we deal with the feelings of others in those relationships. This doesn't mean one can't leave the church (maybe they will), but *how* do they leave? H
...How do they let the emotions wrapped up in meaningful relationships be part of their process? How do they say good-bye and grieve the loss of 'family'? How do they attend to or not attend to the feelings of the people left behind who are also losing beloved friends? How do they take others' feelings into perspective? It doesn't mean that others' feelings (or even our own) determine what we do, but I do believe that these feelings matter and should be honored and acknowledged. There is not necessarily a formula for how this should be done, but I do think it needs to be handled very carefully. Just some food for thought.
Hi Gabe. Thanks for continuing the conversation.
You say, “I don't think I'm making his authority disappear, I think I'm recognizing that it has disappeared.”
I think we’re actually in agreement here: that a bishop is a bishop if he preaches the gospel like a bishop. And ours doesn’t.
What we seem to disagree about is what to do about it. You say that the church is God’s, and so staying in TEC isn’t staying under our (heretical) bishop, but staying in God’s church.
I guess I don’t see churches as incorruptible. I think churches can stop being God’s. Churches are made up of people who can (en masse, sometimes) decide to become apostate. It’s happened many times in history. Churches become unfaithful sometimes. Sometimes they even cease to exist! God has given us the free will to make really bad choices, and, at times, to destroy his handiwork. Just because TEC was a Christian church in the past doesn’t mean it is now.
You’re right that historically people have disagreed about what to do about apostate churches and bishops. I would point out that unless Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox, you don’t have much grounds for saying that you should never, ever leave.
I can see saying “we’re going to stay and fight.” But I think if you do that, the road to doing it is being the best X sort of Christian you can be. If you’re Catholic, be the best Catholic you can be. If you’re Lutheran, the best Lutheran. If you’re Anglican, the best Anglican.
What Blessed Sacrament is doing with the diversified parish isn’t being the best Anglicans we can be. In a weird way, we’re being just as disastrously inclusive as TEC. In trying to accommodate TEC folk, and ACNA folk and R. Catholic folk, we’re quickly becoming nothing at all.
What is our theology? Is it based on the 39 Articles? On the Catholic Catechism? On the liturgy that will be coming out of General Convention? Hard to say in a diversified parish.
I have sympathy for the call to unity, but without an agreed-upon theology – without dogma – how can you have a church community? There is a dream of all Christians who can confess the Nicene Creed worshipping together, and pray God we one day will, but on this Earth, that has yet to happen. And the only reason it’s happening now in our parish is because the Anglicans are willing to ignore their theology, the Episcopalians theirs and the Roman Catholics theirs. This seems to me to be a very shaky, and ultimately unsustainable, foundation for a church.
(And, tangentially, I think allowing Roman Catholics to take communion pretty much is encouragement. I did miss that sermon though, so I confess to ignorance of my ignorance!)
(Gabe, I'm sorry, my answer to Katie is forever-long too. Tell me if you want me to kick this over to my blog, and I will.)
Hey Katie!
First, I admit to being a J. ☺ I do see it as a logical impossibility to be both in TEC and in ACNA, or in TEC and in the Roman Catholic church. I understand that you may not agree with, but given that belief of mine, can you see how the diversified parish looks incoherent to me? (And maybe to other J’s? Though my husband’s very P and he sees it the same way!)
Leaving BlSac is the last thing I want to do . . . except to fail to follow Jesus. (And I’m not saying I know what He’s told you to do – I don’t!)
There are kind of two parts to this:
1) TEC. I think most of us at Blessed Sacrament can agree that the leadership of TEC is no longer Christian. The disagreement is what we ought to do about that, right?
2) Blessed Sacrament’s reaction, i.e., the diversified parish. That BlSac is responding to TEC’s heresy is very good. The way it’s responding, though, is kind of incomprehensible. Most parishes who have found themselves where we are have come to the conclusion: we have to leave. A few have said: we stay, and we be the best Episcopalians we can. That BlSac isn’t coming to either of those conclusions, but is instead inventing new ecclesiology is . . . troubling. How is it possible for us to think that TEC’s got it wrong, and ACNA’s got it wrong and we’re the only ones who have it right?
So, I’m hoping (this is my true, deep down, I-know-it’s-a-chance-in-a-million-but-please-God-
may-it-happen hope) that Blessed Sacrament decides to follow the godly lead of men like Scofield and Duncan and Iker, and leaves TEC together, as a parish.
I think that any other answer is going to fail us in the end. I want us all to stay together too – but have you noticed that the more we try to think of a way to stay together that doesn’t quite take us to the extreme of actually leaving TEC as a parish, the more complex and weird the plan gets? Doesn’t that seem odd to you?
In a very real way, I think that our fear of losing our community is blinding us to the truth that if we just all held hands and jumped, we’d make it over to the other side – all of us, all together.
The problem is though, in the end, if we won’t agree to all leave together, some of us are going to leave separately.
I hope – I still hope – that something will push us all to leave together. Maybe it’ll be Fr. D’s article, maybe it’ll be something at Gen Con. I hope we all leave together. But if everyone else decides to stay, we still have to go.
I remember talking to my sister about all the mess that’s going on, and something she said really stayed with me. It shocked me at the time (my sister is much blunter than me!), but it stayed with me. I to
... talking to my sister about all the mess that’s going on, and something she said really stayed with me. It shocked me at the time (my sister is much blunter than me!), but it stayed with me. I told her about all the mess and she shrugged and said, “Yeah, that’s what happens when you don’t follow Jesus.”
So, in the end, that’s what we’re doing. We have to follow Jesus, and he’s leading us out. I hope he leads everyone else out too.
Though, I will say, if he is calling you to stay, I hope you guys make a grand fight of it. I hope it’s worthy of song.
More to Katie . . .
On “identity issues”: Well, we are all sinning saints, that’s for sure! But, a couple of things:
-churches are not people. Churches have doctrinal statements. There is no perfect church, of course, but it’s usually pretty easy to tell which one you’re in. There may be a tension between the-now-and-the-not-yet in our behavior, but there isn’t really a tension between whether or not you’re attending a Catholic mass or an Orthodox one, you know? There’s lots of grey in the world, but that is pretty black and white.
So, the diversified parish exists, but not according to its definition of itself. It is a TEC parish. It’s a TEC parish that wishes it were ACNA and Roman Catholic. It is also a TEC parish that refuses to take the hard step of converting to one or the other.
That’s what “diversified parish” means, in practice.
Now, from that practice, you can gather lots of interesting ideas, full of tension. ☺ But I think in order to examine all the interesting ideas generated by the diversified parish, you have to start by looking at the facts.
One last one, and then I'm gonna go get some sleep.
I’m not entirely sure what you mean about viewing the church as leadership alone . . . I don’t, actually. I think BlSac does, to some extent, as BlSac seems to define itself as okay as long as its priest is orthodox.
I’m also not saying the affair has no substance, in the lover/husband analogy. It’s because the affair has substance that there’s a problem. What I’m saying is that you can’t indefinitely stay as both a mistress and a wife. Eventually you have to choose. BlSac seems, to my view, unable to choose. The parish is trying to live in the tension of loving both TEC and ACNA, and I think that we have to jump to one side or the other, or we’re going to fall between two stools (to introduce another metaphor!).
And you have a good point that relationships are also a theological matter. That’s very true. But you see, we think the best thing we can do for our parish – for these people we know and love - is to leave, in hopes that it will make it easier for other people to follow. If you thought that everyone in Building A was going to be killed, the best thing to do is to leave Building A, and ask all your friends to come with you. That way, you’re saved and so are they. That’s why we’re sticking around for a few months, so we have a chance to tell people why we’re leaving; that’s why we’re not just disappearing. Because we think we’ve found a way out, and we want all our loved ones to get out too.
It’s so hard to go to BlSac every Sunday, knowing that we’ll be gone soon. Sunday mornings are very hard now. But we owe BlSac for showing us Anglicanism, this best of ways of worshipping God. And so we don’t want to leave abruptly.
I wish I were better at explaining why we’re going – why we want everyone else to come with us. But I guess in the end, all I can say is: there’s life over there. There’s hope, there’s fellowship with people who love Jesus. TEC is full of lies and death. Before, there wasn’t any other way to be both Anglican and American, but now there is. And if there is, why not take it?
I guess I see it as imminent danger. I think TEC is a bunch of people running off a cliff. We’re running along a little longer, trying to convince people not to run off the cliff. But, in the end, if no one agrees with us, well, we’re going to stop running. We hate to see you run off a cliff, but we’re not going to run off it ourselves. Maybe you’ll see us stopping, and you’ll decide you don’t want to run off either. I hope so.
But, again, if you do keep going with TEC, I hope God gives you all grace and courage to fight the good fight in the middle of it. May His name be praised through you.
Gabe, thanks for saying a lot of what I've been thinking and not knowing how to communicate --- especially the part about obedience to one's immediate church leadership, which is very much why we would be staying if we could (stupid job! 
). I'm mostly wanting to address Jess' comments about R.C.'s at Blessed Sac., though.
Jess, I think you might be misunderstanding what's going on there. Joel is the only Catholic that is currently taking communion, and that is because of our particular situation, not because of any policy that Fr. David or B.S. has stated (except for the general Anglican stance of not denying communion to people who feel they can take it.). The Roman Catholic option that is currently under discussion is trying to find ways that those who are Catholic or going Catholic can stay in the Blessed Sac. community without breaking canon law. Everything that is being done is being discussed with local Catholic authorities.
Just wanted to clarify that.
Jess,
I don't think I've ever gotten this many comments on a blog post before. This is fun.
I guess I don’t see churches as incorruptible. I think churches can stop being God’s.
...I would point out that unless Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox, you don’t have much grounds for saying that you should never, ever leave.
You're right. I don't mean to say that a church is incorruptible, and I certainly don't believe you should never leave. I do think that this two-Anglican-churches-in-North-America thing is going to be temporary (cf. the African bishop you quoted), and that ACNA is not formally a "different church", but (as I explained in my post) standing in the gap of the vacant leadership left by TEC. That it has a parallel hierarchy is unfortunate but (for now) necessary. When I say "it's God's church", I mean that I am trusting God to work out the current turmoil in the Anglican communion, and I am not convinced that I need to leave TEC to be a part of that.
What Blessed Sacrament is doing with the diversified parish isn’t being the best Anglicans we can be... What is our theology? Is it based on the 39 Articles? On the Catholic Catechism? On the liturgy that will be coming out of General Convention? Hard to say in a diversified parish.
It is not hard to say! Having fellowship with Catholics does not make us Catholic, or them Episcopal. It just means that we value the people at BSac who have decided to convert to Catholicism, and want to continue to be connected to them as much as possible. This is exactly what Sheldon Vanauken did when he converted to Catholicism. It doesn't involve any theological change or confusion on the part of BSac.
There is no theological confusion between the TEC/ACNA groups either. Of course we will reject, as we've been doing for 30 years, actions of GenCon which violate traditional Christianity (did you really have to ask? . And of course the 39 articles are the foundation for all Anglicans (although, like you, I wish more attention were paid to them at BSac).
I guess I see it as imminent danger. I think TEC is a bunch of people running off a cliff.
Can you clarify your analogy? What I don't understand is why you think that the heretics in charge of TEC are somehow pulling us along with them into heresy. How exactly will Blessed Sacrament "fall off a cliff" b/c of someone else's heresy?
I understand that you need to leave, and I've been praying that God will bless you where you go, but I do not think you need to be worried about the future of Blessed Sacrament. I've been feeling lately (cemented by last Sunday's gospel reading about Jesus' calming of the storm) that BSac and her witness are safe, despite all evidence to the contrary. We are standing where we've always stood, not running along into heresy with the rest of TEC.
I don't expect you to make decisions based on what I think God is telling me, any more than I can ma
...I don’t expect you to make decisions based on what I think God is telling me, any more than I can make them based on what He’s telling you. But I do hope this isn’t the deciding factor in your decision, and that you would still make it even if you thought Blessed Sacrament would continue to stand as a beacon of orthodoxy for a long time to come. Because that’s where my money is.
Hi Jess,
Thanks for the response - sorry it's taken me a bit to reply... I figure you'll understand, tho', since we both had brothers getting married last weekend.
I can understand how someone who sees it as impossible to be simultaneously in both TEC and ACNA would not see a diversified parish as coherent. (For the record, I could be wrong, but I don't think a diversified parish is the most current plan.) I guess I just don't see it as impossible though, given the *reasons* for BSac staying in TEC - if they were claiming to agree with or support the tenets of both ACNA and TEC, then of course that would be impossible; but they're not. They're staying in TEC, testifying to their beliefs in essentially ACNA principles.
"How is it possible for us to think that TEC’s got it wrong, and ACNA’s got it wrong and we’re the only ones who have it right?" - I don't think BS has said ACNA's got it wrong. FD is affiliated with ACNA. I think he just feels called to something different. But I don't think any of us (staying at BSac) think ACNA has it wrong - we love the truths that ACNA is about. If ACNA were essentially about "leaving," I guess then there would be room to say that we're saying through our actions that they have it wrong; but as far as I understand that is not what ACNA is essentially about. Wouldn't you agree that it's possible to choose a different road yourself, and not think that another road is wrong? (For example, in the past I've heard your family say that very thing about your decision re: TEC vs. other families' decisions that are different).
"I think that any other answer [other than leaving] is going to fail us in the end." I guess I believe it is premature to decide to cut out now - for us, since we have not yet felt called to that. If it fails, then we will leave when it fails. But again, I realize that different people are called to different things (and with different timing), and I can definitely understand if you're being called to leave now.
"I still hope that something will push us all to leave together." I'm so glad - I have the same hope, and that's why we haven't made a decision yet as to how we will act. We want to see what happens this summer (article, GenCon, etc).
"It is also a TEC parish that refuses to take the hard step of converting to one or the other." Ouch. Jess, if you really believe this, I think you've completely missed the point of what BS is trying to do, or at least you are lumping everyone together under an attitude that is not true of us all. It hurts me a lot to hear you say this about me and people I care about. I'm sure you're not trying to be hurtful, but please realize that your words do hurt, especially since I think you are misunderstanding the hearts of those of us who feel called to stay. I really think that is a mistake to conclude that BSac is refusing to take a hard step.
"I’m not entirely sure what you mean about viewing the church as l
"I’m not entirely sure what you mean about viewing the church as leadership alone . . . I don’t, actually." I was referring to your earlier statement that "I think TEC is a church, but I don't think it's a Christian one - at least not if you define it by its leadership." I understood you to be defining a church by its leadership, since you used it as a reason to define TEC as a non-church.
"What I’m saying is that you can’t indefinitely stay as both a mistress and a wife. Eventually you have to choose. BlSac seems, to my view, unable to choose." Hm... I don't even really think this analogy holds up anymore, since (like I said above) BSac is not staying with TEC because we think there is something attractive about her tenets... that seems to be the problem with the guy who has both a mistress and a wife - he is drawn to both and wants to embrace both. But BSac's heart is not that at all, her reasons for staying with TEC are not at all that of a man who can't leave his mistress because of infidelity. I think this is where I most struggle to understand your evaluation of the situation. To me, it changes everything that the heart of BSac (or at least of FD), is not that we are staying because we are too afraid to leave, or because we are somehow drawn to the heresy, but because we are hoping that they will repent. I do believe there will come a time when it costs too much to stay for that reason, but I don't believe that time is now. I think it is a mistake to say BS is "unable", simply because they have not jumped yet. It doesn't mean they never will.
"we think the best thing we can do for our parish – for these people we know and love - is to leave, in hopes that it will make it easier for other people to follow." Have you heard what happened at the more recent Anglican Option meetings? This is actually what several people in the Anglican Option are trying to do, in a way that will actually create a palpable way for people in BS to follow eventually, should the need for that arise - if this is your family's heart (I think that's awesome), you should really consider that option and find out more about it (talk to the Bells in particular).
I guess it seems like your family and mine are being called to different things, and I want you to know that I respect that. If you feel God is calling your family to leave, I really support you following that. But I hope you understand that we feel just as called to not leave yet, and that you'll be able to accept that and support us in doing that as well, and not so hastily jump to conclusions about our motives.
Under the Mercy,
Katie
Hi Gabe!
Here’s me, finally continuing the conversation. ☺
I agree with you that God will work out the current turmoil, but that doesn’t mean that TEC will forever be “God’s church”. However, I can respect your position that you think it currently is – or that at least BlSac’s corner of it is. I disagree, but I understand the position.
So, given that, what do you do with the actions of Gen Con this week, that have made it clearer and clearer that TEC is not a Christian church? I can see two good ones:
1) You stay TEC anyway, and fight the good fight, denouncing the heretics and refusing to let them claim what is not theirs (this would be the Klingon “today is a good day to die” plan – right on).
2) You acknowledge that the city is fallen, and try to flee with the remnant, and fight on new ground. (i.e., join ACNA)
Again, as far as I can see, the diversified parish plan is doing neither.
“How exactly will Blessed Sacrament "fall off a cliff" b/c of someone else's heresy?”
Well, one of the ways is with this very plan of diversifying the parish. To be honest, to me it seems like a symptom of being in TEC too long. Instead of coming up with a clear plan of action (either “stay and fight!” or “shake the dust off your feet!”, we’ve come up with this plan that makes us twist ourselves into weird little knots. Forgive me, but “diversified parish” sounds very . . . Episcopal.
It’s said in Proverbs that our company changes us, and I think that’s true, and visible in this very weird, not-workable-in-real-life plan. Also, again, our money is going into a building that belongs to TEC, we’re breaking bread with heretics, we’re not being allowed to ordain our priests. That’s to start. And we are letting ourselves be named with those who deny Christ’s salvific work. Frankly, I don’t think TEC deserves to be able to point to BlSac as a member.
I don’t think we have any good way of saying “we disagree with you” – in a way that also conveys the gravity of the disagreement - other than leaving. They’re not going to read our website. The only effective tool of communication we have is our feet.
That, also, I realize, is debatable. But that’s my take on it.
For what it’s worth, everyone who isn’t in Blessed Sacrament with whom I’ve shared this plan has thought it was weird and didn’t make any sense. I know – the plural of anecdote isn’t data! ☺ But the view of this plan from people who aren’t involved in BlSac is very different from the view of people within, in my experience. Which leads me to suspect that, objectively, it’s a bad plan. Its emotional appeal (“no one has to go” is what makes it so powerful within the parish. To those who d
...For what it’s worth, everyone who isn’t in Blessed Sacrament with whom I’ve shared this plan has thought it was weird and didn’t make any sense. I know – the plural of anecdote isn’t data! ☺ But the view of this plan from people who aren’t involved in BlSac is very different from the view of people within, in my experience. Which leads me to suspect that, objectively, it’s a bad plan. Its emotional appeal (“no one has to go” is what makes it so powerful within the parish. To those who don’t know the people involved, it’s nonsensical.
Though it’s not all-powerful even within the parish. We’ve lost two families over it so far, and from the conversations I’ve had, I don’t think we’re going to be the last. (To quote one fellow parishioner, “’consensus’? do you remember a ‘consensus’?”
Thanks for your prayers for our family. I really do appreciate it. I’m praying for yours too, and I expect that even if we’re at different churches, we’ll still be friends, because I think what is essential hasn’t changed: we’re both trying to serve Jesus first and best. I disagree with you, but I absolutely believe in your good faith here.
And yes, we’re making our decision because we’re being called out of TEC, not out of BlSac. I care about what happens to BlSac, which is why I’m writing about it, and again, am still hoping against hope that we get to stay with our parish. If He does indeed spare BlSac, Lord willing, I won’t be like Jonah, going and pouting because God was merciful! ☺ I would be glad.
I’m still wondering what will happen next. I might look back on all of this from the vantage point of next month or next year saying, “if only I’d known!”
Hi Katie!
Yes, weddings have a way of pushing everything else to the side, don’t they? Totally worth it though. ☺
I don’t know quite how to put this, so please forgive me if I do it badly, but I just wanted to start off by addressing your view that some of my opinions are hurtful. For what it’s worth, I agree. This whole situation hurts. The official stance of BlSac hurts me (it feels like they’re tearing away my home by continuing to travel along with the heretical TEC) and I’m sure that my family’s stance hurts those who stay (they probably feel deserted). Because being on different sides of an argument always hurts when the people involved love each other, I think that pointing out the hurt – when you’re arguing the points of the disagreement – isn’t very helpful to the further study of the problem.
For instance, I’m tempted to not address your comments on my view of BlSac as being afraid to choose, because I’m afraid your only reply will be to be hurt. But that leaves me with few choices:
-I can address it, knowing you’ll be hurt by my stance
-I can ignore it, leaving you unhurt because my opinions are unexpressed
-I can pretend to have different opinions than I do
None of those are good options, but the second implies consent-by-silence, the third is dishonest, and so I’m going to go with the first. I might be wrong in doing that, but as far as I can see, it’s the best option. I wish my stance didn’t hurt those who disagree – I wish theirs didn’t hurt me. But since both sides are hurting, I think all that’s left is to try to figure out which side is right (if any – quite possible we’re both wrong), so that we can figure out where we can go from here.
Or, at least, understand each other’s (perhaps painful) stances.
Anyway, I hope that made sense. It’s not that I don’t care about your hurt, it’s just that I can’t change my opinion based on that alone (though it can be a factor). It reminds me of that passage in “A Man for All Seasons”, when the Duke of Norfolk tries to convince Thomas More to assent to the king’s marriage. He says, “come with us, Thomas, for fellowship’s sake.”
And More says, “And when you go to heaven for doing your conscience, and I go to hell for not doing mine, will you come with me too? for fellowship’s sake?”
That’s it. I can’t change my mind “for fellowship’s sake”; I can only wish I could.
Hope that makes sense. Onwards!
“I can understand how someone who sees it as impossible to be simultaneously in both TEC and ACNA would not see a diversified parish as coherent.” ← I think that this the heart of our disagreement. If you think that you can be in both ACNA and TEC at once, then the “diversified parish
...“I can understand how someone who sees it as impossible to be simultaneously in both TEC and ACNA would not see a diversified parish as coherent.” ← I think that this the heart of our disagreement. If you think that you can be in both ACNA and TEC at once, then the “diversified parish” makes a lot of sense – it’s the best of both worlds!
“(For the record, I could be wrong, but I don't think a diversified parish is the most current plan.)” ← Cool. I’d be glad to know what the most current plan is; I’m just going off what I read in the latest edition of the Bethlehem.
But, till I know better, I’m going to assume the diversified parish is still the plan. In which case, those who are called to join ACNA are still without a home at BlSac, so it still is not a plan that “satisfies everyone’s conscience”, as it claims. Those convicted to leave TEC still have to leave, because BlSac is still in TEC.
And that might really be what it comes down to: some of us are called to leave and some are called to stay. I don’t know if that’s true, but I acknowledge the possibility. What is problematic about the “diversified parish” plan is that it obscures the fact that those called to ACNA are still conscience-bound to leave BlSac. It makes it look like there’s a home for us there, when really there isn’t. It kind of muddies the waters.
I did say, and I do mean, that I believe it’s possible for some people to be called to stay in TEC. But to me, staying in TEC because you are hoping for the church to repent (good reason, btw!) would include calling them to repentance. It would also – in my opinion – not include pretending to be in ACNA, when you’re not actually willing to join leave TEC and join ACNA. Some individuals might join ACNA, but BlSac will still be TEC.
Again, that’s a point of disagreement, and I realize that. It goes back to my belief that a parish can’t simultaneously be in both TEC and ACNA. If you disagree with that, again, I can understand why the diversified parish option is appealing.
From my point of view, the desire on BlSac’s part to be in ACNA indicates that they ought to go ahead and do it. When they don’t, despite their strong desire to join with the likes of Iker and Scofield, that’s when they look wishy-washy. Even if you don’t agree, can you see how it looks that way from the perspective of someone who thinks you can’t do both at once?
Given the premise that TEC and ACNA are mutually exclusive, not being willing to choose one or the other looks very odd. I do wish that BlSac would make up its mind.
Anyway, I’m not expecting to convince you, but I hope that clarifies my own thought a bit.
Again, this isn’t meant to hurt in anyway, though I know that the disagreement does hurt. I think it&
...Again, this isn’t meant to hurt in anyway, though I know that the disagreement does hurt. I think it’s worth bearing with the hurt in order to speak our hearts to each other. I hope you agree. Staying or leaving, you guys are friends, and we’re glad to know you and to know that we all are doing our best to follow where the Lord leads us. That’s what’s really important. I know we might not end up in the same parish, but I’m still hoping we will. Thanks for the conversation, Katie.
OT, but, Gabe, I think your comment page is growing to book-size proportions. "Conversations on the Polity of a Parish"?
Jess,
Just a few quick comments, as I think we're converging on "we just see this differently":
I agree with you that God will work out the current turmoil, but that doesn’t mean that TEC will forever be “God’s church”
The problem isn't just with TEC. Global Anglicanism itself is in a bad way. Several provinces are only a little behind TEC, the ABC himself is hardly a paragon of orthodoxy, and even ACNA allows women's ordination. I am trusting God to work all of that out, in time. You may think that this process implies that some churches will disappear and be replaced by entirely new ones, but I'm more inclined to see it as God's cleansing of the one continuing Anglican church - in America and elsewhere. If He chooses not to do this and I need to keep hopping from breakaway to breakaway to stay orthodox, then Anglicanism isn't what I thought it was.
For what it’s worth, everyone who isn’t in Blessed Sacrament with whom I’ve shared this plan has thought it was weird and didn’t make any sense.
Everyone I've mentioned it to has thought it did make sense. I think this mostly has to do with how we present it.
In which case, those who are called to join ACNA are still without a home at BlSac, so it still is not a plan that “satisfies everyone’s conscience”.
This is probably true, but I don't think you're correctly describing the motives of most of us in the Anglican Option group. Of those who regularly attend the meetings (not counting you), I'd guess that only 2 or 3 families feel so strongly about being a part of ACNA that they would leave BSac if there was no Anglican Option. As far as I can tell most of them are not there because they feel called to "join ACNA" in the sense that you do, and the contradictions you're talking about just don't apply.
I believe you that most of the families see it differently than we do, and I could see how it would make the contradictions I see seem less important. If your fight is the one within TEC, you care about different things. (Reminds me of this essay by Sarah Hey - forgive my lack of HTML tags - http://standfirminfaith.com/inde.../article/24332/
- have you read it?)
I know that part of the reason it really bothers me is that people ask us, "why are you leaving? I thought you could leave TEC and still be at BlSac?", and I have to try to explain why being at BlSac means being in TEC. But I suppose that won't be my problem much longer. It still bugs me that my friends are involved in something that seems so intellectually inconsistant to me, but . . . again, it's not my fight, so I don't get to decide the tactics.
What's hard is being called to leave, and not having those who stay behind understnad why we're going, because of the fact that they think they've already solved the problem. And insisting that they've solved the problem, even though they're not the ones who actually HAVE the problem. This isn't in reference to you, btw, but it is something I've encountered in the past few weeks and months. And my family isn't the only one. It makes us look like the bad guys, because haven't we heard that you can stay at BlSac without remaining Episcopalian? no? . . . eh, it gets frustrating. And for some folks I've talked to, heartbreaking.
Anyway, none of that is your fault. Like you said, we're converging on agreeing to disagree, but in the best sense, I think, because we can both see each other's point as we're disagreeing with it - I feel like I know why you disagree with me, and you know why I disagree with you, and that's actually a pretty amiable place to be, all things considered.
Anyway, one last point: I wouldn't call going to ACNA hopping from breakaway to breakaway, because what's remarkable about ACNA to me is that it's a bunch of breakaways coming together, which isn't something you see that often (ever?) in church history.
Commenting by HaloScan
