An excellent diagnosis. For Anglicans in North America, this is particularly true.
Moral positions become primary markers of identity rather than secondary expressions of baptismal belonging.
One of my friends, a liberal Bishop a generation ago, always reminded folks that Baptism is the identity sacrament. I quote him to our open communion people.
At first sight, I read "shared moral horizon" as "shared meal horizon." We Anglicans are no longer all in communion with one another, in the quite literal sense of being able to receive communion in one another's churches, because entry to the meal has been restricted to those who assent to the moral. To put it another way, the lex credendi has become the rule for the lex orandi rather than the other way around.
I am not speaking here about differences of opinion on sacramental validity around women in holy orders, but of exclusive communion based on one's subscription to traditional Christian sexual mores. It seems to me that, as you say, our abandonment of common prayer (which I would say comes with all parties, Catholic, Evangelical and Latitudinarian, abandoning the titular Book thereof) has led to a polity of communion based not on formative shared rites, but on credal affirmation.
An opponent of women's ordination who subscribes to traditional sexual mores might say that GAFCON has done the right thing for the wrong reasons. I hope that the conservative Anglican world will have more of a shared imagination than liberal approaches to Scripture allow, but I fear that commitment to Scripture and the Articles without reference to the liturgy in which our souls are formed will lead, as it appears already to be doing, to further schisms. The cart has been put before the horses, and they are bolting in all directions.
We need something like the consensus Darwell Stone identifies between 19th century Tractarians and Evangelicals, before the relativising impact of historical-critical scholarship turned the entire faith into a free-for-all.
My own view is that we're all so utterly and thoroughly compromised that beginning anywhere except with collective and individual repentance gets us nowhere. As long as any of us think of ourselves as among the righteous (which is what I often think GAFCON implies about itself), then we'll get no further than the Pharisees did. If anything ever compelled me to abandon our Church, it would be how comfortable middle class we are. I'm no better (and in many ways worse) than anyone else in this regard. But I'm continually struck that I feel a degree of pressure to take a stance on various controversial issues (especially on sexuality) but none at all about how I spend my money or what I'm actually doing in a meaningful way to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and visit the sick and those imprisoned. This is where I think we still have much to learn from Catholic Social Teaching.
All important insights, good Father. Comfort can indeed stifle missionary imperatives in every sense, not only the more obviously evangelistic. And yet, a church with no people in it, or with none who are able-bodied, isn't going to be able to fulfil those imperatives for much longer. It's also worth noting that a lot of the GAFCON people are themselves the relatively hungry, poor and naked, who don't have the money to spend, and yet still do a better job of looking after one another than many of us manage in more affluent climes. The desire to change the traditional moral teachings of the Church can be at least as much a bourgeois distraction as the fight to retain them. Across the board, recapturing the imagination of what the Church is and should be therefore remains important work. I am thankful that you are doing it!
Hi Mark, these articles are outstanding and really resonate with me in my corner of Anglican evangelicalism. You say “What is missing is a shared moral shelter: a lived, recognisable world capable of holding concerns and disagreements within a common orbit”. I wonder whether our current disputes over sexuality in particular are now so polarised that inhabiting the common moral world that you reference is now no longer possible? I’ve come to a more progressive stance on same sex relationships over time but would still hold orthodox creedal Christianity. I hope and pray that our unity can be found in Christ and around the historic creeds and a shared sacramental life as a touch point for unity rather than around a particular moral issue. We shall see.. thanks again and keep the articles coming!
Thanks so much, Adam. Glad you're enjoying them. Yeah, I do believe that the 'common moral world' (in a positive sense) we share is now pretty tenuous, though I blame the lamentable quality of formation on both sides for this. But, I do believe we very much share a 'common moral world' (in a negative sense) that causes both sides of an issue like this to prioritise it as much as we do. What distresses me more than the polarising debates we're having are the debates we're not having because of the bourgeois attitudes we all share. I'm not sure there's much we now offer to address the sources of rising populism, social anger, and pessimism about our institutions and the future of our society.
In America, two thirds of the membership of mainline Christian denominations have reached their 60th birthday, myself included. Whatever the proposed Anglican re-structuring will be, it will need to focus on younger people/families (who are the ones most in need). Many of the problems that you diagnose have been framed as “moral therapeutic deism”. This seems to be what the churches are selling. The solution(s) may turn out to be very disruptive of church authorities and will be multi-generational. Benedict Option(s)? maybe.
Thanks for the engagement, Jon. I'd get your concern entirely, but I think the Church simply needs to do what it has been called to be and be happy with those whom God sends to it. Yes, it needs to make sure it doesn't place any hurdles in the way of children and young people (Lk 17.2), but otherwise be reassured that there'll be a limitless supply of older adults.
An excellent diagnosis. For Anglicans in North America, this is particularly true.
Moral positions become primary markers of identity rather than secondary expressions of baptismal belonging.
One of my friends, a liberal Bishop a generation ago, always reminded folks that Baptism is the identity sacrament. I quote him to our open communion people.
At first sight, I read "shared moral horizon" as "shared meal horizon." We Anglicans are no longer all in communion with one another, in the quite literal sense of being able to receive communion in one another's churches, because entry to the meal has been restricted to those who assent to the moral. To put it another way, the lex credendi has become the rule for the lex orandi rather than the other way around.
I am not speaking here about differences of opinion on sacramental validity around women in holy orders, but of exclusive communion based on one's subscription to traditional Christian sexual mores. It seems to me that, as you say, our abandonment of common prayer (which I would say comes with all parties, Catholic, Evangelical and Latitudinarian, abandoning the titular Book thereof) has led to a polity of communion based not on formative shared rites, but on credal affirmation.
An opponent of women's ordination who subscribes to traditional sexual mores might say that GAFCON has done the right thing for the wrong reasons. I hope that the conservative Anglican world will have more of a shared imagination than liberal approaches to Scripture allow, but I fear that commitment to Scripture and the Articles without reference to the liturgy in which our souls are formed will lead, as it appears already to be doing, to further schisms. The cart has been put before the horses, and they are bolting in all directions.
We need something like the consensus Darwell Stone identifies between 19th century Tractarians and Evangelicals, before the relativising impact of historical-critical scholarship turned the entire faith into a free-for-all.
My own view is that we're all so utterly and thoroughly compromised that beginning anywhere except with collective and individual repentance gets us nowhere. As long as any of us think of ourselves as among the righteous (which is what I often think GAFCON implies about itself), then we'll get no further than the Pharisees did. If anything ever compelled me to abandon our Church, it would be how comfortable middle class we are. I'm no better (and in many ways worse) than anyone else in this regard. But I'm continually struck that I feel a degree of pressure to take a stance on various controversial issues (especially on sexuality) but none at all about how I spend my money or what I'm actually doing in a meaningful way to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and visit the sick and those imprisoned. This is where I think we still have much to learn from Catholic Social Teaching.
All important insights, good Father. Comfort can indeed stifle missionary imperatives in every sense, not only the more obviously evangelistic. And yet, a church with no people in it, or with none who are able-bodied, isn't going to be able to fulfil those imperatives for much longer. It's also worth noting that a lot of the GAFCON people are themselves the relatively hungry, poor and naked, who don't have the money to spend, and yet still do a better job of looking after one another than many of us manage in more affluent climes. The desire to change the traditional moral teachings of the Church can be at least as much a bourgeois distraction as the fight to retain them. Across the board, recapturing the imagination of what the Church is and should be therefore remains important work. I am thankful that you are doing it!
Hi Mark, these articles are outstanding and really resonate with me in my corner of Anglican evangelicalism. You say “What is missing is a shared moral shelter: a lived, recognisable world capable of holding concerns and disagreements within a common orbit”. I wonder whether our current disputes over sexuality in particular are now so polarised that inhabiting the common moral world that you reference is now no longer possible? I’ve come to a more progressive stance on same sex relationships over time but would still hold orthodox creedal Christianity. I hope and pray that our unity can be found in Christ and around the historic creeds and a shared sacramental life as a touch point for unity rather than around a particular moral issue. We shall see.. thanks again and keep the articles coming!
Thanks so much, Adam. Glad you're enjoying them. Yeah, I do believe that the 'common moral world' (in a positive sense) we share is now pretty tenuous, though I blame the lamentable quality of formation on both sides for this. But, I do believe we very much share a 'common moral world' (in a negative sense) that causes both sides of an issue like this to prioritise it as much as we do. What distresses me more than the polarising debates we're having are the debates we're not having because of the bourgeois attitudes we all share. I'm not sure there's much we now offer to address the sources of rising populism, social anger, and pessimism about our institutions and the future of our society.
In America, two thirds of the membership of mainline Christian denominations have reached their 60th birthday, myself included. Whatever the proposed Anglican re-structuring will be, it will need to focus on younger people/families (who are the ones most in need). Many of the problems that you diagnose have been framed as “moral therapeutic deism”. This seems to be what the churches are selling. The solution(s) may turn out to be very disruptive of church authorities and will be multi-generational. Benedict Option(s)? maybe.
Thanks for the engagement, Jon. I'd get your concern entirely, but I think the Church simply needs to do what it has been called to be and be happy with those whom God sends to it. Yes, it needs to make sure it doesn't place any hurdles in the way of children and young people (Lk 17.2), but otherwise be reassured that there'll be a limitless supply of older adults.
I wrote several years ago about my own concerns about the Benedict Option: https://anglicancompass.com/sorry-benedict-we-need-an-augustine-option/
That's the way I'd go.