Saying Goodbye to the Episcopal Church

Readers have sent me links to two statements those of you interested in the response of conservative Episcopalians to the recent General Convention may want to see. The first is the declaration of Christ Church in Plano, Texas — reported to have the largest attendance of any Episcopal Church in the country — that they are leaving the Episcopal Church, and the second a study published just before the Convention by the Falls Church in Falls Church, Virginia. (The second is a pdf file.)

If any of you have links to other statements by conservative Episcopalians, please publish them in the comments section. The form to use is <a href="WEB ADDRESS">TITLE</a>. You need the quotes around the web address.

Comments

[James A. Altena]

I hate to be a wet blanket (OK, I really don't, but . . .), but the Falls Church statement is sadly an all too typical example of what is being produced by "conservative" congregations still remaining within the PECUSA. While they correctly identify the fault line of division being between those who accept and reject the nature and authority of Scripture, and proclaim themselves to be "orthodox" (calling the AAC "orthodox" is a bad joke), in fact they identify orthodoxy with opposition to homosexuality, while swallowing the camels of women's ordination, easy divorce and remarriage, contraception, etc., and the falsely so-called 1979 "Book of Common Prayer" that is the virus for transmission of all the same. (Touchstone's contributing editor Dr. Peter Toon has of course eruditely discusssed all of this many times in great detail in books and regular e-mails to correspondents.) Even now they still speak of trying to discern at what point they must decide to "walk apart" from the PECUSA. If they haven't been able to see by now that the time was long ago, one wonders if they ever will. Instead, they offer the usual endless rehash of past meetings and resolutions, and vague implications of an immanent decisive response -- which is invariably followed by . . . more of the same. They keep stepping back and drawing a new line in the sand, and when the revisionists cross that they repeat the process again. It's pathetic, and I long ago stop taking anything said in such quarters seriously.

[Gene Godbold]

James,
I just read that whole thing and I've got to disagree with you--they admit that, at least when it comes to divorce and remarriage, they have "beams" in their own eyes. I thought it was refreshingly frank. (Incidentally, while I'm Anglican, I've never been in ECUSA.)

If you look at how heresy is historically resolved, it typically takes *decades* and sometimes centuries, for orthodoxy to win. It might be counterproductive to beat up on the poor schmucks for not getting with the program when others of us saw the writing on the wall a looong time ago. Do you want to just be right or do you want to encourage those who have decent impulses to live them out?

[Gene Godbold]

Dear James,
That last question now strikes me as tendentious. Please forgive.

[Darel]

I believe the proper initialization is now TEC, not ECUSA (much less PECUSA).

[William Tighe]

TEC = "The Emptying 'Church'"

[Dcn. Michael D. Harmon]

I thank Prof. Tighe for reminding us that schisms come in at least two flavors. One is a group of churches or other organizations leaving their former home to either join an established polity or begin a new one more in accordance with their vision.

The other is when individuals, each according to his own conscience and informed understanding of orthodoxy, stands up, says "I can't stand this any more," and walks out the door.

TEC may undergo the first one in some meaningful way now that its general convention has declared open war in traditionalists.

But it has been undergoing the second for decades,. and that will continue no matter what.

[Douglas]

Dcn. Harmon:

The second will accelerate, particularly as the Episcopal Church begins its process of homosexual ghettoization. Stuart Koehl made a great reference to "Liturgy Queens" the other day and that is exactly what is going to happen. Homosexuals enthralled with the aesthetics of the sacramental rites and the intellectual cachet will flock to the Episcopal Church. Heterosexual families will drift away in twos and threes until all that remains are a bunch of stupid old hippies and gay men.

Is there hope in the broader Anglican Communion? I don't know, since the nominal head denomination, the COE, is infected with a lot of the same rot, and is even more desperate to shore up a disappearing membership. I'm not a Brit, so maybe someone can prove me wrong.

[firinnteine]

James -- please note that this was published before GC2006. I think there is little question for the Falls Church (and others of us) whether association with TEC will continue. The last chance has been given, and thrown back in the faces of orthodox throughout the communion, in the US and elsewhere. It's over.

Here are some other links of interest (I've been collecting them):

Diocese of Pittsburgh Bishop's Letter (including a copy of his letter as moderator of the Anglican Communion Network, which may also be read here).

Diocese of South Carolina Bishop's Letter.

Diocese of San Joaquin Bishop's Letter.

Diocese of Fort Worth Bishop's Letter (this is Bishop Iker, and the diocese that has already requested alternative primatial oversight).

Diocese of Dallas Bishop's Address (audio) -- warning, it is rather long, and he only really starts addressing the question at hand about halfway through, after discussing the growth and ministry of the diocese (one of three that have shown extraordinary growth over the last ten years; South Carolina is another).

I expect several other dioceses to respond in similar ways, though some do not update their webpages regularly and there may not be copies of letters available; probably, in fact, there will be a similar response from all the bishops associated with the ACN, who signed this letter in response to B033, the "response" to the Windsor Report shoved through by the Presiding Bishop and the Presiding Bishop-elect a day after the House of Deputies had rejected it.

Finally, here is a letter from the rector of Truro Church, perhaps the other leading orthodox congregation in the Diocese of Virginia, besides the Falls Church.

[David Gustafson]

Dear James,

I attend the Falls Church, for which I cannot speak, but which I think I do understand. You did not identify your own church affiliation, which would have been useful in putting your criticisms into perspective. Did your church and yourself leave the ECUSA at some time in the past? Were there some who had left earlier, and criticized your slowness?

It is unfair to say that the Falls Church “proclaims [itself] to be orthodox”, which sounds like some sort of bragging. Rather, we aspire, we strive, we resolve to be orthodox. There are gaps between what we resolve and what we achieve. But even if you are right that it shouldn’t have taken the issue of homosexuality to spur us to action, and that we should have realized the situation earlier and acted long ago, and that even now we understand the situation only imperfectly, perhaps you could nonetheless take some satisfaction that we do (in your words) “correctly identify the fault line of division being between those who accept and reject the nature and authority of Scripture.” Couldn’t this even be a cause of rejoicing?

Maybe you could see yourself as one of those workers in Matthew 20 who has been laboring since the beginning of the day, and now at the eleventh hour these latecomers arrive. You have a choice of either urging them into the vineyard and encouraging them toward perfection, or else pronouncing them pathetically and incurably late. I know you would want to encourage them.

David

[James A. Altena]

To various correspondents above,

I hope you don't mind a blanket reply, instead of addressing you severally. Obviously if not unexpectedly I've stirred up a hornet's nest. I didn't want to have to elaborate at length on a summary statement, but it seems that is requested. I apologize in advance for its length

As for my ecclesiastical background. I was raised Presbyterian (which didn't "take"), went through the wilderness of atheism and agnosticism, and in 1984 by Providence stumbled upon the (then) last remaining 1928 BCP parish in the Episcopal Diocese of Chicago. In 1993 I moved to Philadelphia and the Church of St. James the Less. Those of you who know matters Anglican are aware of our travails under "Bp." Charles Bennison, our departure from the PECUSA in 1999 (though I personally have been canonically a member of the Episcopal Missionary Church since 1995), our recent loss of parish property and re-formation as the Church of St. Michael the Archangel.

Already within a year or so of joining my parish in Chicago it was painfully evident exactly which way the wind was blowing and to what end it would lead, the only question being one of time. The 1989 convention in Ft. Worth that founded the ESA (now FiF/NA) temporarily raised hopes of real and decisive action on behalf of orthodoxy, but within a year it was evident that it too was nothing but a dog and pony show.

I have attended dozens of national, regional, and local meetings of ESA-FiF/NA and allied bodies, and it is always the same routine at each one. First, expressions of outrage over the latest actions of the PECUSA (OK, now TEC -- not that I care about the name change, except that it takes lots of chutzpah to name one's self "The Episcopal Church" as if no other church bodies are episcopal in character) and ringing declarations that this was/is the last straw. Second, vague promises of imminent decisive action (specifics of which naturally can never be revealed to the hoi polloi in the pews). Third, tiresome reiterations of Bp. Terwilliger's "We're not threatening to leave, we're threatening to stay", etc. (Oh, doesn't that one just have the folks in PECUSA/TEC headquarters at 815 in NYC shaking in their boots!) Fourth, . . . nothing. Just another position paper or statement of outrage, and a threat that NEXT TIME decisive action will be taken. Fifth, push the "repeat" button, with lame excuses as to why meaningful action cannot be taken now.

My parish in Chicago was typical. It clung to the 1928 BCP because of the rector and mere sentiment, not out of theological conviction. Any suggestion of substantive action, such as refusing to allow (then diocesan heresiarch) "Bp." Griswold to preach, celebrate, and confirm would be met with an uncomprehending stare and the rejoinder "Why can't you just be nice?" (For proper Episcopalians, social etiquette must always trump fidelity to the faith and taking up the cross.) I was most thankful to God to come to Philadelphia in 1993 to a parish and rector that I knew had a sound grip on the reality of the situation and were taking concrete steps to prepare for the hour of trial, with a willingness to suffer the loss of all earthly things for Christ.

So, for over 20 years I have watched as this sorry process of endlessly drawing new lines in the sand has allowed revisionist heresiarchs to bide their time and undermine and take over once solid parishes one at a time. (Their usual strategy is to wait for or pressure the rector to leave, and then manipulate the "search process" for a new rector with a vetted list of candidates, meanwhile softening up the congregation with a series of suitable "interim rectors" and supply priests.) The story in the Diocese of Pennsylvania is typical. Originally there were nine ESA parishes. After 15 years of temporizing with arrangements such as the "Parsons Agreement", five have been co-opted by the Diocese or made their peace with oppression; two have left the PECUSA/TEC; and two are in a kind of twilight zone of being still in the PECUSA/TEC on paper (due to property issues, as always) but in effect out of it (with clergy canonically members of African provinces serving their parishes in defiance of Bp. Bennison). The difference between the five on one side and four on the other was interminable talk about taking action vs. going ahead and actually taking it. (Also, the five compromisers all use the 1979 book, while the four stalwarts use the 1928 BCP or Good Shepherd Rosemont's "Anglican Services Book".)

Hence, I learned long ago not to put any stock in statements from "conservatives" promising to consider future action, as opposed to actually taking action NOW. (Maybe Falls Church is truly different, and if so well and good, but the language of its statement is entirely typical of the hundreds of hollow past statements from parishes that have backed down time and time again. I can only base my judgment on that statement and the fact that Falls Church has still remained in the PEUSA/TEC to this date.) The points at issue have been talked to death. While the laborers who come in at the 11th hour (or even one nanosecond to midnight) are always welcome, I am convinced that the vast majority of those who have not left the PECUSA/TEC by now will never leave, but always find yet another excuse to stay. But the Church (and hence any "church" that purports to be a visible expression of the Church catholic) is an organic body, not a voluntary association; by definition one cannot be an "orthodox" member of an apostate body.

My use of the phrase "proclaim themselves to be 'orthodox'" to describe the AAC and those of its views was deliberate, and I offer no apology for it. I did not use it not to accuse anyone of bragging, but rather to make the point that many congregations and organizations identify themselves as such for opposing homosexual conduct while endorsing the heresy of women's ordination. If anyone accepts priestesses he is a heretic and not orthodox, pure and simple, no matter how much he wishes to pretend otherwise. And the measure of whether one truly strives or aspires to be orthodox is whether he accepts the continuous teaching and practice of the church catholic with regard to doctrine and morals (even he does not fully understand it intellectually), or whether he sets his own judgment against those in some area. Any catholic Christian with even a modicum of knowledge knows that the Church has never had priestesses, and did so on principle and not by accident. Although some err out of ignorance and confusion and are thus only guilty of theological error, generally speaking to support ordination of women priests requires willful rejection of orthodoxy.

E.g., Bp. Duncan of Pittsburgh is a man of principle and courage. He is also a heretic, who loses no opportunity to promote the participation of priestesses at every venue in which he participates. I have grown weary of hearing FIF/NA clergy at meetings assert that women's ordination is a "salvation issue" at the very heart of the Christian faith upon which there can be no compromise, and then two sentences later (literally, in one case) turn around and call Bp. Duncan & Co. "orthodox", re-characterize the ordination issue as a mere "disagreement", and call for full cooperation with them in all areas. I don't have patience for arrant double-talk, and it can't be had both ways, no matter what the modern Laodicians may desire.

As for the "fault line" of the nature of Scripture -- it's not that I don't "rejoice" in the recognition of the principle. But talk of fidelity to Scripture as God's revelation means little if one decides that one can interpret the Scriptures to set aside what the Church has always believed the Scriptures say on issues such as women's ordination. That is after all exactly what the heresiarchs of the PECUSA/TEC do all the time with issues such as homosexual conduct. It is only a difference in degree, not in kind.

Today's newspapers are carrying stories of Rowan Williams' latest proposal. I would like to be proved wrong, but I don't believe it will come to anything, but will be negotiated away into pablum, just like so many of the preceding proposals to provide alternative provisions for the orthodox. And many of the "Third World" Anglican bishops held up as possible alternatives for episcopal oversight also "ordain" priestesses. I am not impressed and do not find this acceptable. (While I am presently in the so-called Anglican "Continuing Church," I have for some years been taking a long hard look at both Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy, particularly the latter, as the Continuum's interminable internal squabbles seem to signify that even the doctrinally orthodox Anglicans are hell-bent on killing their own communion.)

Finally, there is a difference between nominal and substantive Anglicanism, whether being Anglican is just a "brand label" and matter of pedigree or or actual content. As Dr. Peter Toon emphasizes, one essential aspect of genuine, substantive Anglicanism is the traditional 1549-1928 Book of Common Prayer. People who use the counterfeit version of 1979 (or the free-lance charismatic services with elements of the same common to many AMiA parishes) are nominal Anglicans. (That is not to say that they are not earnest Christians, only that their practice of the faith is not genuinely Anglican.) In the long run, however, use of the 1979 book is inimical to a true and lively faith. As Fr. Charles Caldwell, sometime professor at Nashotah House, once said, "This book [1979] is spiritual poison. Anyone who uses it is slowly killing his faith, drop by drop." Again, Dr. Peter Toon has written far more extensively on this subject, and those with questions should refer themselves to his works.

I do not claim to be a person of exceptional foresight or superior spiritual character. (My confessor could tell you quite the contrary on the latter point if not for the sacramental seal!) After all, I entered the PECUSA/TEC years after many had rightly left it in 1976. Nor am I eager to pursue some ultra-rigorous path of supposed ecclesiastical purity according to my own pattern of (Puseyite High) Churchmanship. [A couple of months ago I was defending my good friend Dr. Toon in a publicly circulated exchange of e-mails against some Continuing Church Anglo-Catholics who were criticizing him as a Protestant "heretic" and asserting that it was a good thing in the service of truth to have severed communion with such.]

But the evidence has long been in plain sight and sound for anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear. The PECUSA/TEC declared open war on traditionalists 30 years ago already. It formally moved from heresy to apostasy at GC in 2000 (or at the absolute latest 2003). The "last chance" already occurred then, not now. And yet one still hears chatter about "retaking the Episcopal Church" for orthodoxy, insistence by the AAC & Co. that "we are not leaving the Episcopal Church," etc. Note: they are not saying that they will leave NOW. They are still talking about NOT leaving, or WHETHER to leave. I can only attribute this unwillingness to face reality to either a willful blindness, or else to putting building and other financial considerations ahead of fidelity to the Gospel and sharing in the suffering of the Cross. The widely reported quote by a layman from last year's meeting of the "Network" in Plano unintentionally said it all: "We can't just walk away [from the PECUSA]. We have a $12 million facility." Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

[Garrigou-Lagrange]

I have had the opportunity to attend the Falls Church on numerous occasions. And I have read the statement from the Vestry as well that came out a week or so ago. I must say, I agree with James regarding the Falls Church and other so-called "conservative" churches. How many more times must you rebuke the ECUSA before you treat them as Our Lord said "as a heathen and publican"? Why risk your immortal souls dancing with the Devil? If your hand scandalizes thee, cut it off. Better to enter Heaven missing a limb than the fires of Gehenna with a full body.

[David Gustafson]

James:

I truly appreciate hearing more of your analysis; but to be frank, it is discredited by its joylessness. It appears that the churches you left previously you should have left sooner. Your current Communion is "hell-bent on killing" itself, and your departure therefrom is probably overdue. You look around for a satisfactory church, and seem almost to despair, finding none worthy--except that you are still taking "a long hard look at both Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy". I hope one of them passes muster.

Overall your discussion reads as if it were written by someone determined to prove that the gates of Hell have prevailed against the Church. I'm sure you actually hold a more confident and hopeful belief.

--David

[David Gustafson]

Dear G-L:

You ask: "How many more times must you rebuke the ECUSA before you treat them as Our Lord said 'as a heathen and publican'?" That is exactly the right question.

The correct answer is, by my count, a total of three times. See Matthew 18:15-17.

--David

[Garrigou-lagrange]

This is my point. How many times has John Yates admonished/rebuked Bishop Lee? How many more times will John Yates meet with Bishop Lee to continue a fruitless "dialogue". Isn't the fact that TFC doesn't ever invite him to preach much less have him perform confirmations or ordinations further proof that full communion has been broken? If so, why remain in communion with him at all? Bishop Lee hasn't changed his stance one iota and hasn't given any indication that he will. It seems almost dishonest to continue making payments to the Diocese of Virginia yet basically totally disregard the bishop. What kind of communion is that?

[GL]

In the long run, however, use of the 1979 book is inimicable to a true and lively faith. As Fr. Charles Caldwell, sometime professor at Nashotah House, once said, "This book [1979] is spiritual poison. Anyone who uses it is slowly killing his faith, drop by drop."

I know little about Anglicanism and especially the merits and demerits of of the various editions of the BCP. What is the problem with the 1979 BCP? I have browsed through it in a book store and saw nothing that stood out as problematic. I have also looked through copies of earlier editions and, while I find the language more inspiring, I saw nothing that made them inherently more "Chrisitan." I am sincere in my question and have reasons for asking it: what is the problem with the 1979 BCP?

[James A. Altena]

David,

My statements are not characterized by "joylessness," but sober realism born of long experience, rather than the soporific platitudes, triumphalist rhetoric, or self-indulgent happy-clappy-sappy emotionalism prevalent in some quarters. Your claim that "joylessness" discredits them is simply a type of ad hominem argument and variant of the genetic fallacy. If you truly want to discredit them, then prove that my description of events and patterns of behavior by "conservatives" in the PECUSA/TEC since 1989 is false. That, you notably do not do. (Considering that between 1989 and 2006 the number of ESA/FiF-NA dioceses has gone from seven to three -- and two of the latter poised to fall when their current bishops retire -- and number of parishes has gone from about 200 to less than 70, I think you've got your work cut out for you.)

I didn't want to get into the following before, but I happen to be one of the former St. James the Less vestry members who (in an unprecedented ruling by the lower court judge) remains personally liable for financial damages (well into seven figures) that the Episcopal Diocese may claim from the litigation over the parish property. We face having paychecks garnished; bank accounts, investments, and pensions seized; and in some cases loss of homes and even jobs. [None of this has yet transpired because the Diocese has bigger fish to fry with getting rid of "Bp." Bennison, but this sword of Damocles continues to hang over our heads.] We have borne the heat of the day, shouldered the Cross, and counted the cost. We rejoice that we have been counted worthy to suffer stripes for His Name of whom we are not worthy. So, David, please pardon me if, in light of this, I say that I find you lecturng me about supposed "joylessness" somewhat presumptuous.

The heresiarchs of the PECUSA/TEC have been admonished and rebuked not just three times or seven but seventy times seven. Do we need to post a list here of all the NT verses that mandate separation from heretics as a Christian duty?

Why do I remain in the Anglican Continuum? a) I believe the classical Anglican way of expressing the Christian faith to be fully consonant with Scripture, Tradition, and Reason; b) In the classical Book of Common Prayer I have the gift of a glorious pattern of doctrine and prayer that sustains me in a way that no other source does for me (without denying the similar virtues of the RC Mass or Orthodox Liturgy for the faithful in those traditions -- it is a matter of personal temperament); c) I have had the blessing of a wonderful parish and superb priest for 13 years now, and could scarcely expect to find their like elsewhere in the area (so much for your assertion that I should have left it too). [I did just visit Fr. Reardon in Chicago, and could easily see myself attending his Orthodox parish if I lived there, even if I couldn't be a communicant -- but that's 1,000 miles away at present]; and d) I have not yet been persuaded by certain specific doctrinal claims of the Roman or Orthodox churches that would be necessary for me to accept in order to join either of them instead. (That of course could be spiritual blindness on my part, which is why I constantly pray for divine guidance.)

I am not trying to see if either Rome or Orthodoxy or the Continuum will "pass muster" with me, as you insinuate. I am simply trying to be faithful to truth as best as I can discern it and realistic about both various communions and myself. And I haven't said anything about the Continuum here that many other Continuers (including some bishops) haven't also said (and far more bitingly than I did) in many other forums. It is currently fragmented into over 40 tiny bodies, none of which has more than about 5,000 members in the USA. Its disunity is scandalous and without real justification, and calls into serious question its claims to be a church of catholic character (a criterion that is something far more than than just formal episcopal pedigree; the same point is true of numerous non-canonical fringe Orthodox bodies).

Do I want classical Anglicanism to survive and flourish? Yes, desperately. But if the clergy and laity of the Continuum wish to fight churchmanship and turf battles endlessly instead of concentrating on the Great Commission, then it will die. [AMiA came into being in part for just this reason.] My parish have been engaged in a prolonged discernment process regarding which greater body of the church catholic to join [Continuum, AMiA, Western Rite Orthodoxy, Anglican Rite use in the RC Church] in part because the Continuum is not a self-evident alternative for a parish seeking to preserve and practice the fullness of the catholic faith in the Anglican way.

Finally, I again suggest that you (and others) should subscribe to Dr. Peter Toon's e-mail distribution list for a far fuller analysis than I can offer in a blog posting of the current dynamics in the world-wide Anglican federation (which is no longer a Communion, as many commentators have noted).

[craig]

GL, the problems with the 1979 BCP become apparent after putting it aside for a couple of years and praying as a Catholic or Orthodox Christian. The 1979 BCP attempted, in the heydey of loosey-goosey ecumenism, to undo the imputational heresy of versions since 1552 and Queen Elizabeth I's Settlement Act. In terms of Luther's famous simul justus et peccator, the 1979 BCP should have taken out the simul part but instead took out the peccator part. In short, it attempted silence on the question of Reformed imputation versus catholic infused righteousness, and ended up with universalism.

But Mr. Altena can't have it both ways: if Anglican "orthodox" (a label he rightly exposes as incoherent) supporters of priestesses are heretics for overthrowing trust in catholic Tradition, so too is Dr. Peter Toon for doing so on formal sufficiency of Scripture, on sacraments, on the Real Presence, etc. Since "classical" Anglicanism is built on the sand of explicit repudiation of apostolic Tradition, it cannot escape internal battles over "heresy for me but not for thee" without setting up a parody of either the Eastern Orthodox synods and frequent excommunications or the Catholic Magisterium -- and this is in fact what we see Canterbury and the Global Southern primates beginning to create. But in continuing to repudiate the doctrine that The Church is infallible, they will be incoherent when they insist that any other doctrines are.

[James A. Altena]

Dear GL,

Dr. Toon and the Prayer Book Society have a lot of material addressing this question in great detail. (Touchstone editors and former Anglicans Fr. Reardon, David Mills, and Dr. Hutchens, and contributing editor Fr. Robert Hart, are among those who could also write much on this subject.) A brief list includes:

a) Gutting the baptismal service of regeneration and incorporation into the body of Christ in favor of a gnostic concept of "initiation" into a community devoted to a politically liberal "peace and justice" agenda [Dr. Toon has just distributed several items on this particular topic.];

b) The sacrament of Confirmation is invalidated by removal of the bestowal of the sevenfold gifts of the Holy Ghost. (Urban T. Holmes, the chief progenitor of the 1979 book, stated in a notorious essay published in 1980 that the revisers didn't even believe in Confirmation, but knew that they couldn't get its omission past the House of Bishops, so instead they deliberately sought to make the text as ambiguous as possible so that it could mean anything desired at a later time.);

c) A unisex language Psalter gutted of Christological content. [E.g., in Psalm 1 "Blessed are those who" instead of "Blessed is the man", removing the reference to Christ as THE archetypical man.]

d) Systematic removal or diminishing of references to sin throughout all the offices, particularly the Communion services;

d) Substitution throughout those services and in the Catechism of a Pelagain view of sin and salvation (one PECUSA bishop publicly stated this to be the case as soon as the GC approved the book in 1979);

e) Revision of the ordinal services to allow for ordination of women priests and bishops, and ordination being made into (and requiring complete fidelity to) the PECUSA rather than into the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. (This change was then used as one of the grounds for persecuting orthodox clergy in the PECUSA.)

f) Rewriting the Nicene Creed to say that Jesus was conceived by "the power of the Holy Spirit" rather than "the Holy Spirit" (i.e. his person and not just his power), to allow for denial of the divine nature in Christ (since all creatures are conceived by the power of Holy Spirit);

g) Use of ambiguous or heretical modalistc language for the Trinity (e.g. "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" as titles rather than "The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost" as proper names], paving the way for use of "Mother, Child, and Friend" and similar feminist heresies.

Once the 1979 book was adopted, its architects then became very public about their actual intentions. E.g., in the aforementioned 1980 essay (I'll have to dig up the exact reference when I return home), Holmes openly admitted that he and his colleagues had lied in claiming that they intended no major doctrinal changes between the 1928 and 1979 books, and speaks contemptuously of getting rid of "Tudor religion."

"By their fruits ye shall know them." Look at the PECUSA today. The 1979 book has been the Trojan horse used to carry the current agenda out. Gene Robinson, etc. is the fruit of that book, as Fr. Caldwell, Dr. Toon, and many others have said.

Rather than unnecessarily taking up more space here, however, if you are interested in more detail, I invite you to contact me personally off this blog site to share this with you, or to give me permission to contact you.

[Juli]

Use of ambiguous or heretical modalistc language for the Trinity (e.g. "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" as titles rather than "The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost" as proper names

Let us love one another, so that with one mind we may confess Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the Trinity, one in essence and undivided.

It is meet and right to worship Father, Son and Holy Spirit: the Trinity

.... sounds pretty Orthodox to me.

I became an Episcopalian in the mid-80s, when the "new prayerbook" was already the norm, but I know that some of the changes introduced at that time brought Episcopal worship closer to ancient patterns of worship: the inclusion of the Great Vigil of Easter and the move to the Eucharist rather than Morning Prayer as the norm for weekly Sunday worship. The expectation that baptism should be part of corporate worship (no "private baptisms"), ideally taking place on one of the great feast days of the church, was also a return to a more ancient understanding of the sacrament.

[craig]

Juli, there were "ceremonial" additions to the BCP that were not without merit -- but the additions, and particularly the subtractions, that were doctrinal are alarming in their bent toward universalism.

[Matthias]

Juli:

James did not elaborate in detail on his points, but they are right. When I was Episcopalian I used to scoff at the idea that the '79 BCP was modalist, but in the process of becoming Orthodox I came to see that it is true.

Briefly, there is a big difference between "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the Trinity..." and "God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." The former is Orthodox, the latter, as used in the 1979 BCP, is modalist.

Look at the Opening Acclamation: "Blessed be God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And blessed be His kingdom..." Who is blessed? "God". Whose kingdom is blessed? "God's". The term "God" here can only be interpreted as the name of a person. And this person is detailed as being Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit. That is not Orthodox, it is modalist, and it is heretical.

Orthodoxy does not speak of a person called "God" who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Orthodoxy speaks of three persons who are one in essence (substance/being/ousios). The excerpts you cite from the Divine Liturgy are consistent with that theology. The 1979 Episcopal book is not.

[GL]

Thanks for the input, so here are the questions: Should I not consider joining an AMiA church using the 1979 BCP (Rite II) which appears to be otherwise orthodox? What questions should I ask and of what issues should I be aware before doing so?

As to modalism, the SBC for years operated under a definition of God which could have been read as modalistic. I suspect few, if any, Southern Baptists were anything other than orthodox in their actual understanding of the Trinity. (The language was modified in recent years to eliminate any modalistic interpretation.)

The language may be less than ideal and the intent of some drafters may have been heretical, but does that make the statements themselves heretical and are they not open to orthodox interpretations? Having made some superficial comparisons, I would prefer to use the 1928 BCP or better still the 1662 BCP adapted for American usage, but is the 1979 BCP so bad as to by itself be a reason to not join an AMiA church?

That is my real concern and one of some moment and import to me. (And please no Catholic and Orthodox efforts to persuade me to join either of those Churches. While I am very much drawn in those directions, and in particular the former, it would be premature for my wife and our families for us to do that at this time. Unlike Dr. Hahn, I am unprepared to cause great heartache in my family at this point in time. The choices are the AMiA church or a non-denominational Evangelical start up made up largely of those leaving my former SBC congregation. I would prefer the former.)

[Matthias]

GL: I suppose it should go without saying that as an Orthodox, I can't recommend anything but Orthodoxy, and regard anything that's not Orthodox as also less than orthodox.

I happen to have spent some time in AMiA before I swam the Bosphorous and am personally very skeptical that it can long endure. The AMiAns I knew were not overtly modalistic in their thinking, but mostly they just weren't very interested in the details of trinitarian theology. Then again, that's probably true in almost any church except for the occasional all-convert Orthodox mission. But that's all the more reason why the liturgy needs to be rock solid, so that it will form good thinking habits even in those who don't read patristics for fun.

I hear you on the family thing. For myself, I came to the point where I knew it was better for the whole family that I go alone to a church where the truth was taught, then with the family to a place where I would be grinding my teeth and wishing I was someplace else.

[craig]

GL, you truly are at the fork in the road. If you let expediency guide you into suppressing your impulse to explore Rome or Constantinople, be advised that in AMIA or evangelicalism you will be in environs that may be more "traditional" than ECUSA but less Traditional in the sense of your learning to being taught by the wisdom of the saints. It may settle the domestic issue for you without settling your conscience. I would advise you to attend without joining for a while, and pray that the Holy Spirit would guide you into the truth.

[firinnteine]

With respect to all my fellow-commenters, speaking from inside the rapidly disintegrating TEC, I do honestly think that there's more than saber-rattling going on here. A lot of rectors and vestry members -- and a few bishops -- are making some pretty clear statements. Maybe I'm wrong; but I don't think so.

GL -- I know relatively little about AMiA, but I personally would be delighted to see you enter Anglicanism. By all means, examine R. Catholicism and E. Orthodoxy; but for some of us who for doctrinal reasons cannot at present enter full communion with Rome or Constantinople (God grant reunion come soon), Anglicanism has provided a very real haven of historically and sacramentally as well as Scripturally rooted Christianity.

Having spent three years attending an independent Evangelical congregation, and recognizing their many real strengths and admirable qualities... go Anglican. :)

[James A. Altena]

Matthias,

Thank you for your gracious comments on "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" in Orthodoxy vs. the modern Episcopal Church and AMiA in response to Juli. I would only add that: a) sometimes the Orthodox liturgies now also suffer from inadequate and misleading translations from their original tongues, due to the baleful influence of "ecumenical" contact with modern Western "liturgists," and b) Juli, don't be taken in by the claims of those liturgists to be returning closer to ancient models -- they only use it as a facade to get behind Nicene creedal orthodoxy and justify legitimation of pre-Nicene Gnosticism.

GL,

We have communicated separately in private. Thanks for sharing your situation. We'll all pray for you.

Craig,

Probably the most charitable thing to do with your post would be to ignore it, but I will instead risk a reply to its disingenuous misrepresentations. I have a strong disagreement with David Gustafson, but he speaks as a Christian gentleman, charitably, honestly, and honorably. Your thoroughly uninformed and tendentious remarks are another matter, and it's making me see red.

First, I did not "expose" the label "orthodox" as "incoherent." Rather, I distinguished genuine classical Anglicanism, which is thoroughly orthodox, from self-styled PECUSA/TEC "conservatives" (who alas are not conserving much of anything) who call themselves "orthodox" while accepting women priestesses. The use of quote marks was a) because the people described use the terms for themselves, and b) to distinguish genuine and orthodox classical Anglicanism from a faux "orthodoxy." But you deliberately twist this by also putting "classical" Anglicanism in quote marks and falsely equating it with the faux "orthodoxy" of the modern PECUSA/TEC self-described "conservatives."

Second, it appears that your only real exposure in personal experience to Anglican worship is the 1979 book -- which as I emphasized is not authentically Anglican at all, but a counterfeit that rejects classical Anglicanism. In other words, you've no real first-hand exposure to classical Anglicanism at all. And yet you want to pontificate on that basis about what the flaws of Anglicanism supposedly are, without having either worshiped in the true classical Anglican tradition, nor having read the classical Anglican divines (more on which below). Thus, the rest of your post is a farrago of pseudo-sophistication that falsely presumes theological issues and disputes in Anglicanism to be the same as those of the Continental Reformers, whereas in fact they were substantially different. (E.g., just for starters, contrary to your false implication Anglicanism never adopted the "imputational" doctrine on grace of Luther and Calvin.) Your comments on Dr. Toon (who I've known personally for some 15 years) are utterly ludicrous. You haven't the slightest notion of what he actually believes, so you simply make scattershot stereotypical imputations to him of what positions you presume any evangelical Protestant would hold. (Try starting with his book on the 7 Ecumenical Councils to alleviate your ignorance.)

Finally, your assertion that "'classical' Anglicanism is built on the sand of explicit repudiation of apostolic Tradition" is fatuously asinine. The classical Anglican divines such as Andrewes, Ken, Taylor, and Cosin, and their latter day successors Pusey, Liddon, and Puller positively embraced, upheld, and taught fidelity to the Apostolic Tradition and patristic fathers (whom they cited copiously, particularly Chrysostom) at every turn. (Argue if you like that they got certain details wrong, but that's quite a different matter than what your claim of repudiation.) No less a figure in Orthodoxy than Vladimir Lossky held that Andrewes' thought was essentially consonant with and in the spirit of Eastern Orthodoxy. Orthodox publications regularly reprint and use Pusey's translations of Ephraim the Syrian and other Eastern fathers. Etc., etc. So I'm not "trying to have it both ways" -- I'm trying to remain faithful to the faith once delivered to the saints, as contained in Scripture and taught by the Fathers. How about if you actually trouble yourself to read in depth what classical Anglicans have written before making your wild and false accusations?

I previously mentioned that I've taken a hard look at Orthodoxy as an alternative. And you want to know one major obstacle that dissuaded me from converting, Craig? Too many converts like you, and too few like Matthias or Fr. Reardon. (Cradle Orthodox generally presented fewer problems.) I regularly attended Vespers and Liturgy (and Matins where offered) almost every week for about three years, read extensively the writings of great theologians such as Florovsky, Lossky, Schmemann, and discussed those with informed Orthodox to make sure I understood them properly from the Orthodox perspective. I've used that knowledge and experience to explain and defend Orthodox doctrine and practice to non-Orthodox Christian friends (including one who is a committed Calvinist) on many occasions. I think the difference between how I treat Orthodoxy and how you treat Anglicanism is instructive. Think about it, Craig.

[craig]

My apologies for causing offense. I am not presently either Orthodox or Catholic (yet), but I seem to have struck a nerve.

Dr. Toon, I'm sure, is a fine man and a better Christian than I am. Dr. Toon's writings (of which I have read only his copious web postings) appear to base classical Anglican "orthodoxy" in certain axioms: the formal sufficiency of Scripture, five (or more or less, depending on who is arguing) ecumenical councils, and the necessity of admitting both low and high views of the sacraments.

My point remains, however: the definition of orthodoxy is precisely the issue, and asserting that "classical" Anglicanism has the right answer is begging the question in the exact same way that AAC-style Anglicans do.

It seems to me that Article 19’s doctrine that all churches are wrong in matters of faith, but some are more wrong than others, is precisely the principle of repudiating Tradition as a teacher. Anglicans can and do admit Tradition as a peer, but unless they accept the fundamental axiom of apostolic Tradition which Rome and Constantinople both accept — that the successors of the apostles are endowed by the Holy Spirit with a charism to teach infallibly such that when they invoke His authority to so teach, it may not be repudiated by their successors — any doctrine Anglicans insisted upon in 1552 or 1662 may be repudiated later according to the same principle.

The proof is in the results, it would seem, and Anglicans seeking to recover orthodoxy would do well to recall the famous anecdote about the Tacoma Narrows bridge design flaw/collapse (about which every engineering student learns); an ambitious politician promising after the disaster to build "the exact same bridge, exactly as before" was warned by engineers that if so built, it would fall into the exact same river, exactly as before.

And, per Forrest Gump, that's all I have to say about that.

[firinnteine]

South Carolina is one of six dioceses thus far to request alternative primatial oversight. Read their statement here.

In other news, the rector of Truro (see above) has been elected missionary bishop for the Convocation of Anglicans in North America by the Nigerian House of Bishops. Bishop Lee is, unsurprisingly, not thrilled with this development. Truro as a congregation has yet to make a definite statement on their decision.

It's happening, folks. Weep and rejoice.

[James A. Altena]

Dear Craig,

Thank you for your clarification, which has a content and tone I wish your original had possessed. And I in turn ask forgiveness of you if my reply was "over the top."

First, I will repeat that you are misreading Dr. Toon, who has for example repeatedly stated his acceptance of all seven Ecumenical Councils (again, read his book on the subject) and waxes quite eloquent on Tradition and the authority of the patristic Fathers. (His sojourn at the REC seminary in Philadelphia was cut short when his exposition of the Eastern fathers to students there led several in short order to convert to Eastern Orthodoxy!) I still suspect your problem with him lies in approaching him with an a priori stereotype and leads you to read certain phrases in terms of pre-conceived categories.

Second, I'm afraid you also misread Article XIX of the Articles of Religion (and I suspect for similar reasons). The problem (as always on this particular point) is that with multiple different definitions and senses of the term "church" in use (e.g., as visible body of professing believers; as local congregation; as denomination; as militant, expectant, or triumphant; as doctrinal body of truth ["body" as both system and as a living organic entity]; etc.), it is easy to misread something or someone when it speaks of the "church." The use of "church", in other words, is not univocal. In the case of Article XIX, it specifically speaks with reference to the "visible church of Christ" as "a congregation of faithful men" (who are of course also sinners and in that sense fallible), not to the infallible sense of the Church as a doctrinal body of truth to which you refer.

Furthermore, Article XIX nowhere says or implies that "all churches are wrong in matters of faith" (though there is a sense in which that is implied with respect to visible churches). It does say that particular churches have erred and do err. But being wrong on a particular point (which is what the Article asserts) is different from being "wrong" across the board. Also, a point you apparently miss is that this also necessarily includes the Church of England. Thus the Article is implicitly also a confession of humility by the C. of E. regarding its own fallibility as a visible church, even vis-a-vis Rome.

None of this is intended to deny the infallibility of the church in the sense to which you refer. It is rather a statement of the fallibility of faithful men in trying to understand and realize that Faith. None of the Church Fathers, whether Chrysostom, Augustine, or Aquinas, was infallible. Nor is any entire church as "a congregation of faithful men" in a given time and place absolutely infallible. "Faithful" does not mean "perfect"; and we do not yet see ourselves as we shall be.

In short, we face here a mystery and paradox of the Christian faith (which a philosopher might well write off as a logical fallacy) regarding the relation within the Church of fallibility and infallibility. It is all too easy to speak of the Church as "infallible" and commit a Hegelian fallacy of hypostasization in positing such a "church" as a Platonic ideal, a mental abstraction existing apart from any actual human members, free-floating in time and space. And yet we also wish to avoid turning from Scylla to Charybdis by conceding a sense of fallibility in such a way that it undermines and destroys the absolute certainty and authority to be placed in the essential doctrines it proclaims. (I take it that this latter point is rightly your chief concern. For those of us who believe in the Tradition of the Church, the sola Scriptura doctrine of Protestantism is an unsuccessful effort to make an end run around this problem.)

We realize that the Church is indeed something other and more than the totality of all its human members (living and departed and yet to come) because it is the Spirit-filled Body of Christ. It is almost the same mystery and paradox of the union of divine and human natures in the Incarnation -- the difference being that in the Incarnation the two natures were and are united so perfectly that the divine preserved the human from sin and error, whereas in the case of the Church its human members are not so perfectly united with the Holy Spirit.

Contrary to what you again assert, classical Anglicanism does indeed hold Tradition to be a teacher, and not just a peer. (Again, try reading the classical Anglican divines I mentioned before making such a claim.) Where there is disagreement between Rome, Orthodoxy, and Anglicanism alike is the relation between Tradition, Scripture, and the Church ( a complex triangle I won't take up here). But all three agree on the authority of Tradition in opposition to at least the now common notions of sola Scriptura. (My RC and Orthodox brethren may correct me here, but I believe that Rome at least also officially professes the formal sufficiency of Scripture, as distinct from material, efficient, and final senses of sufficiency.)

Third, this leads to the last point. I nowhere assert or imply that "'classical' Anglicanism has the right answer" -- at least, not in the sense that you seem to imply that I hold it to be THE right answer, and the "answers" of Rome, Orthodoxy, and Continental Protestantism to be "wrong" (also in your implied sense). That would run contrary to the sense of Article XIX. Rather, as I have stated, I hold classical Anglicanism to be one faithful way of the Christian faith. Faithful, not perfect (I think my own posts have emphasized that enough!), and thus there are other faithful ways -- Rome, Orthodoxy, and classical confessional Protestantism. In the vicissitudes of history (the history of ideas being my field in graduate school) one body may be more faithful at a given time, or in its particular understanding of a mystery of the faith, than another. That does not mean I view the alternatives indifferently; rather, that I strive for the humility to recognize my own limitations and sins, and the virtues and strengths of others. Each of us is where we are in our particular pilgrimages of faith because of both providence and accidental circumstances, requiring of us all patience and forbearance.

And so I have never once sought to "convert" someone to classical Anglicanism as THE true expression of the Christian faith, and would find the very notion of so doing abhorrent. Rather, when and if asked, I will try to explain why I believe it faithfully realizes the Gospel, and (charitably, I trust) explain why I differ on certain points with brethren of other Christian communions -- and in so doing be open to listening to them in the same manner. (I happen to think that Anglicanism would benefit from an infusion of several elements from Eastern Orthodoxy in particular). In short, if someone is genuinely interested in classical Anglicanism of his own volition, I'm happy to open the door and invite them in, but if they're not I'm not a salesman for it as a brand-name product against other brand-name products of the same type. It particularly grieves me when some Touchstone readers blog not in order to oppose the common worldly enemies to our faith, but instead to promote their own churches over all others and take cheap pot-shots at the latter. I don't think that is what the magazine or web site is about, nor should it be.

Finally, your assertion regarding the current state of Anglicanism as evidence of a fundamentally flawed foundation (that "the proof is in the results" and analogy to "Galloping Gertie") simply illustrates the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy that all consequences are somehow necessary results of all precedents. (That would of course mean that the Inquisition is necessary to Roman Catholicism, Phyletism to Eastern Orthodoxy, etc.) Suffice it to say that the current sad state of Anglicanism is due not to historical necessity, to some Hegelian logic of history inherent in a flawed foundation and design, but rather due to contingency, to the misuse of free will by sinful men to turn aside from sound and straight and narrow paths of salvation to crooked and broad ones of destruction. I believe the classical Anglican way is sound; and the fact that certain folks have chosen to reject that way, but remain in its folds as wolves in sheep's clothing (as St. Paul prophesied) does not ipso facto disprove that.

Good night, Forrest Gump. Sleep well, and peace.

[Jeff Sawtelle]

I have problems with calling Truro a leading "orthodox" Anglican church, having spent 16 years there, leaving at the beginning of 2004.

Truro is a member of the Willow Creek Assocation, uses the 1979 Prayer book (the Prayer Book Society has no presence there), and has had female clerics. I'm sure that their priests can say the Nicene Creed (1979 BCP version) without mental reservation, but I thought that orthodoxy meant more.

With friends like these ... .

We have had a couple of young congregations, South Riding and Holy Spirit Dulles (a Truro church plant), leave TEC. They were young churches, without buildings, which could engineer unanimous votes to leave and settle accounts with the diocese and then walk out.

The interesting part is that both of them affiliated with the Province of Uganda, rather than joining any of the continuing Anglican churches or the AMiA. Why? Rumor has it that they wanted to continue to use the 1979 BCP and be free to ordain women priests, as Uganda does. So, to these evangelical and "orthodox" bodies, women's ordination has passed from permitted to mandatory.

I will be watching Truro with great interest, particularly on the issue of what Province it chooses to affiliate with, and why.

This reminds me of the old jibe that orthodoxy is my doxy and heterodoxy is the other guy's doxy.

[firinnteine]

I have a friend who attends Church of the Holy Spirit; I would be surprised if they were planning to ordain any women anytime soon. But you're probably right that they went on using the 1979 BCP.

[GL]

I probably shouldn't post to this as I am not Episcopalian, but I couldn't help but laugh at an article I read earlier today, Episcopalians urge against diocese breaking away.  The part that amused me was the following quote:

"We take no position on Scripture or theology or morals," said Donna Bott, a leader of a group called Episcopal Voices of Central Florida, which sponsored the meeting.  "We are just Episcopalians."

I'll refrain from commenting on that quote; I think it speaks for itself.  Those of you who are orthodox Christians and Episcopalians have my sympathy.