What really divdes Anglicans
2 September 2007 - 20 אלול 5767 by Huw
Fr Hohn Heidt is from Ft Worth. His essay, entitled What really divdes us. is a wonderful explanation of the differences between the various parties within Anglicanism. It’s worth noting that, although various persons might say otherwise, both Anglican Shi’ites and Sunnis (let the reader understand) have these “high church” and “low church” parties.
Father’s essay has a very concise statement of Catholic sotierology:
Grace restores the divine image in man. Salvation comes through growth in grace, not through some kind of substitution deal between Jesus and His Father. Because grace saves us from the effects of our sins, we are no longer slaves but friends of God. Though our sins make us unworthy to come into His presence, by divine grace we are made worthy to stand before him.
The comments to the essay seem to play up the stark division in the camps. I remember, when I worked at 815, how odd it felt to hear that Jack Iker was standing arm-in-arm with women clergy. 10+ years ago, that was the first time I used the phrase, “There’s only one sin left.”
I giggle that Father is discussing an appearance of Bp Duncan at the Society of the Holy Cross: I know a goodly number of gay men who are members of that organisation.
I knew Fr Heidt’s son in England about 20 years ago. He’s now a married Forward in Faith priest in Canada.
‘Anglican Shi’ites and Sunnis (let the reader understand) have these “high church” and “low church” parties’ is one of the pithiest, best descriptions I’ve read. It doesn’t capture every shade of churchmanship but is close enough for a sound byte. :)
The conservatives have a handful of Anglo-Catholics along with scads of low-Central Episcopalians and boatloads of Third World Evangelicals (lower in churchmanship than almost all Americans)…
…whilst the liberals have their high churchmen, the credally orthodox and liturgically conservative who have far more in common with me than with Spong or mainstream RC but are OK with gay weddings (and women clergy), and their low churchmen, the Spong-ish types, an ageing minority just like the radical liberal nuns in the Roman communion.
Regarding the accusation of hypocrisy against Bishop Iker of course I understand. I’ve no problem recognising women clergy as sister Christians and acknowledging the good many of them do in their ministries, but as a Catholic I don’t claim to be in communion with them. Seems less hurtful that way, strange as it seems. But you raise a well-known point that the Elizabethan settlement holding Catholics and Protestants together can’t last. Essentially one of Fr Heidt’s points.
And I agree that Father’s descriptions and comparison of Protestant and Catholic views of sin and grace are beautiful.
Finally as I mentioned in another comment I know there are lots of gays in Anglo-Catholicism including the SSC. A well-known bit of Anglican insider lore. We know some of the same people. That falls under tolerant conservatism - uphold the faith but apply it charitably. Something that might seem hypocritical (’Closet cases!’) to you and other gay critics but something I believe in.
I’m sure we know some of the same people, LOL.
Honestly, I’m not sure how I feel about Iker, personally (as opposed to professionally), hanging out w/ women clergy. But I remember the event and they wanted to “clean up the Church”. Considering they wouldn’t normally even *talk* to each other, they had clearly found a common eneny. That would be me…
I don’t think of the “closet cases” as hypocritical: that’s their personal choice just as the last five years were a personal choice for me. I’ve been in the “out political” movement… Don’t need to go back. *shrug*.
I think the hypocritical action comes in sitting through a Duncan lecture without calling him down. One needn’t be out to tell him he’s wrong. Or walk out of the talk. Or whatnot.