The first I can easily understand. Actually, I find the mixture of evangelicalism with conservative economics to be quite baffling, especially when one reads the OT prophets. I’m having a harder time comprehending how orthodox anglo-catholic and social libertarian can go together, though. It seems that a conservative theological stance would necessarily lead to a conservative moral stance as well, unless one can separate the purely theological teachings of the church (which do not change for the orthodox anglo-catholic libertarian) from the church’s moral teachings (which apparently can change). Of course, all of this would become more comprehensible if libertarian social values were not preached from the pulpit or if the Church’s teachings on social values are not as “crystal clear” as many conservatives make them out to be.

“Doesn’t the nature of conservative thought frown upon the inclusivity the EC is striving for?”

That depends. It depends on what one means by “conservative” and what one means by “inclusivity.”

Sometimes “conservative” means adhering strictly to the social conventions of the dominant culture (or the dominant culture of one’s youth or one’s parents’ generation, or the culture one imagines was dominant at some time in the past). This sort of conservatism (call it “social conservatism”) has no specifically theological content, and has far less to do with Christian orthodoxy than many soi-disant “conservatives” may tell you. An Orthodox, Catholic, Episcopalian, Baptist, Jew, Mormon, or Muslim (or even atheist) may be this sort of conservative without compromising any of his or her theological commitments.

Then there is political conservatism of various stripes (neo-, paleo-, etc.). This, too, is largely independent of any particular theological stance.

Finally, there is a specifically theological conservatism, which is the result of a commitment to a more or less specific understanding of Christian orthodoxy. In the Anglican context this has (at least) two forms, Anglo-Catholic conservatism and evangelical conservatism. What is often missed about this is that there is no necessary relationship between theological conservatism and either the social conservatism or the political conservatism noted above. One may be an orthodox evangelical and a socialist at once; or an orthodox Anglo-Catholic and a libertarian on “social” issues at one and the same time.

What one may [i]not[/i] do while remaining a theological conservative is to pretend that the teachings of the historic orthodox Christian faith can change with the times. And this is where the meaning of “inclusivity” bears on the question. If “inclusivity” means preaching the Gospel to all people, whatever their life situation or their “lifestyle,” and if it means welcoming all people into the Church where they may take up their Crosses and follow Jesus, no theological conservative will (or should, anyway) “frown on it.” If, however, it means that Christian orthodoxy has been reduced to one option among many, and that both orthodox and heterodox may authoritatively preach and teach from the Church’s pulpit, then a genuine theological conservative will not only frown, but outright scowl, on such a situation.

When I was an Episcopalian, lo those many years ago, I was a member of the premier Anglo-Catholic parish on the West Coast: a bastion of theological conservatism if ever there was one. Perhaps 60-75% of the membership was gay, and some of the members were unmarried couples living together (including one single mother raising an out-of-wedlock child). My wife and I, as a middle-class married couple living in the suburbs with a couple of kids, were the real “alternative-lifestyle” folks in that context! It was as “inclusive” an Episcopal parish as you could think of.

But the priests did not teach from the pulpit that traditional Christian morality was wrong; quite the contrary. What they did teach, from the pulpit and by example, was that each Christian has his or her own struggle with sin, the flesh, and the devil, and that we are not to judge our brothers. How my gay friends in that parish reconciled their sexuality with the teaching of the Church was not my business; it was between the individual, his father confessor, and God. There was no slot in that matrix for me and my opinions, my approval, or my disapproval.

Somehow the Church of the Advent managed to be “inclusive” without compromising orthodoxy. If the Episcopal Church wishes to be “inclusive” of a wide variety of [i]persons[/i], a true conservative need not frown. If, however, the Church is “inclusive” of doctrinal and moral heterodoxy, that is another matter (and altogether frown-worthy).

In some cases. as does the nature of some liberal thought!

But no, not always. And yes there are some conservatives still left (and a couple of ‘em even float around these pages!)

I think this is a nice idea on paper, but can it work in the real world? Can conservatives and liberals or what have you worship under the same roof for an extended period of time without parting ways? Are there any more conservatives left in the denomination? Doesn’t the nature of conservative thought frown upon the inclusivity the EC is striving for? Don’t get me wrong, I think the Anglican Communion’s attempt to be the roomiest church in Christendom is a noble cause and provides a spirituality in tune with the finer aspects of post-modernism, but can it be done?