To Stay or not to Stay

This essay presents a few observations on two of the postings found on the AAC website. These are the essays by Radner and Stott, both of whom advocate remaining in the Episcopal Church. I write this essay because I believe those who consider themselves orthodox must seriously address the question of remaining in the church. The AAC holds a definite position, that orthodox believers should not leave. Their reasoning merits our attention, and the essays by Radner and Stott are the strongest papers supporting that position. In this essay, I will assess their arguments.

Radner offered three primary reasons for remaining in the church. First, it is the way of Jesus Christ. Secondly, institutional order and commitment provide the spiritual context for growth in sanctification. Thirdly, we have seen the bitter fruit of separatism.

His comments on the way of Christ are the most compelling. He observes that Christ "was a 'stayer', not a 'leaver'" and that Jesus did not form a separate community like the Essences. He even had "table-fellowship with his enemies." Even more, Jesus' refusal to abandon God's people had a terrible consequences, even death on a cross. Only in this way is the love of God revealed and his people redeemed.

As Radner's arguments stand, they would affirm remaining in the church under any and every circumstance. If his arguments are to have meaning, he must first define the criterion by which one may or may not remain in the church. He does not do so. For example, does his claim that Jesus had table fellowship with his enemies and that he was a "stayer" and not a "leaver," imply that believers who "follow in the steps of the Master" should remain in an institution that teaches the worst heresies, engages in the vilest abominations, and denies Christ on every side from every pulpit? I am not claiming that the Episcopal Church is apostate to that degree. I am simply saying that Radner's arguments imply that one should remain in the Episcopal church under every conceivable circumstance, even if that institution were to transform itself into an instrument of the anti-Christ. No one believes that one should remain in an institution under every conceivable circumstance. Arguments that hold regardless of what happens in the church are clearly inadequate. If Radner's reasons for staying in the church are to have meaning, he must define the criterion by which one stays or leaves. Then his essay would have significance, then ECUSA could be measured against a standard that yields meaningful results.

The question of leaving or staying, however, rests on a more fundamental question, What is the essence of the church? Hooker, for example, understood the church in terms of one Lord, one faith, one baptism. By faith, he meant doctrine, adherence to doctrinal truth. From the beginning doctrine, the truth of the gospel, has always been a characteristic of the true church of Jesus Christ. Persons and churches that denied orthodox doctrine were considered heretics and banned from the church. And if that be true, would not those who advocate remaining in the church need to discuss doctrine? Doctrine was not among the criteria Radner offered for remaining in the church. Even so, the matter lies close to the surface of Radner's essay. He states that he is orthodox, and claims that he and others remain in the church because they are orthodox. But if he and others belong to the "orthodox" party, then he must consider others to be heretical. What then is the church to do about heresy in her midst? I shall return to that question.

Stott's essay is closer to the truth. He recognizes the importance of doctrine. In his view, if "the Church were to deny one of the central truths of the creed, like the incarnation, the atonement or the resurrection, it would cease to be a church. It would be apostate. Then we would be obliged to leave it. But thank God that lamentable situation has not arrived."

He then qualifies what he means by the term "arrived." He means a church that, by and large, has remained faithful to its traditional beliefs and morals. He would not, for example, judge an entire church on the basis of a "few idiosyncratic leaders." Furthermore, he would apparently not abandon the Church as long as it "continues to look to the Prayer Book and Articles as its foundation documents, even where subscription to them has been relaxed."

Several comments are in order. First, these comments gloss over what is really happening in the church. There has been an insidious heresy that has invaded the churches from the time of Schleiermacher. It is widely taught in our seminaries, believed by church leaders, and daily affirmed by numerous scholars and teachers. It is not a "few idiosyncratic leaders." It isn't just Bishop Spong. It is John Macquarrie, J.A.T. Robinson, Frank Griswold, Bill Countryman, Carter Heyward, Timothy Sedgwick, Matthew Fox, William Swing, and a great many bishops, clergy and laity who believe this panentheistic heresy, or at least, resonate to its primary tenants.

Further, when he observes that the church "continues to look to its foundation documents, even where subscription to them has been relaxed," he fails to understand the cancer that devours the church. The heresy does not deny the foundational documents. The heresy loves them -- Scripture, Creeds, liturgy, worship, the life and mystery of the ancient tradition are daily affirmed. The heresy doesn't deny the formal content of the faith. It simply reinterprets the primary documents by means of a heretical category such as the "feeling of absolute dependence (Schleiermacher), the encounter with the Holy (Macquarrie) or the ecstatic beyond the distinction between subject and object (Tillich). And, along with this theological innovation, there is a way of interpreting Scripture devoid of any trinitarian or christolgical foundation.

As a result, the revisionists are able to read the same gospel, celebrate the same Eucharist, worship in the same church, and enjoy institutional unity with the orthodox while entertaining utterly difference conceptions of God. Only when we get to something practical -- language for God, sexual ethics, ordination of practicing homosexuals, evangelism to those of other religions, miracles, and healing, does one begin to notice the differences between orthodoxy and heresy. And the differences are profound. They cannot be bridged. They are oil and water.

Further, the revisionists can espouse institutional unity with the orthodox because, in the end, a great many of them do not believe that doctrine belongs to the essence of the church. In their view, doctrines are derivative. They derive from something more fundamental, the encounter with the Holy, an encounter which gives rise to doctrine according to one's cultural context and individual characteristics. As a result, different people can enjoy similar encounters with the sublime, and yet, express it quite differently. Frank Griswold is a perfect example. In his view, "contradictions and paradoxes and seemingly irreconcilable truths - which seem both consistent and inconsistent with Scripture -- are brought together in the larger and all embracing truth of Christ, ..." Once a person believes that, it is only logical to think that heresy and orthodoxy are surface phenomenon. Beneath the surface, in the realm of true religion, we are united by a common allegiance to the "all embracing truth of Christ" so that all doctrinal differences fade away in the Sublime.

Although we must ask whether or not to stay in the church, we must first ask a more fundamental question: "With whom shall we enjoy Eucharistic fellowship?" Should we celebrate the Eucharist with apostates? That is the fundamental question. As I read church history, apostates were excommunicated, placed under anathemas, and the faithful were forbidden to enter into Eucharistic fellowship with them. The reason this hasn't happened in the Episcopal Church is that the leadership will not excommunicate itself, the orthodox are outnumbered at the level of institutional decision making, and finally, a goodly number of the orthodox have yet to accurately assess the gravity of the situation.

It does not help, in my view, for orthodox leaders like Stott to say that we are not in crisis, that the "lamentable situation has not arrived." The "lamentable situation" has arrived. Strangely, Stott begins his essay with these words,

An appreciable number of its leaders bishops, cathedral deans, seminary deans, seminary teachers, parish clergy are guilty of multiple unfaithfulness. Doctrinal truth and ethical standards which are plainly taught by scripture, and which the Church has accepted from the beginning, are now being challenged and even summarily rejected.

The rejection of "doctrinal truth and ethical standards which are plainly taught by scripture" are not peripheral matters, they are "central truths of the creed, like the incarnation, the atonement or the resurrection." Does anyone think that Anglican theologian John Macquarrie believes in an empty tomb or a bodily resurrection? And even if Frank Griswold believed in a bodily resurrection, which is problematical, it is clear that he considers the resurrection a symbol for the belief that revelation really occurs in the "events and circumstances" of life. Why else would he support the ordination of practicing homosexuals, if he didn't believe there was some form of revelation that superseded Scripture and the tradition of the church? And Bill Countryman, professor of New Testament at CDSP, after an exhaustive analysis of the biblical revelation, states that "the gospel allows no rule against the following, in and of themselves: masturbation, nonvaginal heterosexual intercourse, bestiality, polygamy, homosexual acts, or erotic art and literature." Why would he say this? How did he interpret Scripture? What were his exegetical presuppositions? I can tell you, they are not orthodox. I could go on and on, but the point is obvious, "Doctrinal truth and ethical standards which are plainly taught by scripture, and which the Church has accepted from the beginning, are now being challenged and even summarily rejected."

What to do? I have two recommendations. First, I would like to join with those of similar inclinations to draw up a Barmen declaration, establishing the essence of the heresy and publishing it to the church at large. One reason I write this essay on ideas published by the AAC is that, in spite of their excellent efforts in so many respects, I do not see them doing the kind of serious theological work that needs to be done in this country. The two essays just described are a case in point.

In regard to a Barmen declaration, I have been working on the kind of theology I think we need. We need to take the strongest arguments of our heretical opponents, analyze them into their key ideas, compare them against Scripture and orthodox theology, and draw out their implications and conclusions.

Secondly, I think we need some serious discussion about Eucharistic fellowship. I could not celebrate the Eucharist with everyone in the church, the Presiding Bishop being one of them. I think a prophetic act, a refusal to come forward for Eucharist at the next general convention, could well be in order. I would like to discuss that with those who have some sense of the gravity of the situation. (White Horse Tavern, May 13, 2002.)

Thank you for your consideration.

Articles

To Stay or not to Stay

Anglicanism