An Explanation is Due
ERGE RECENTLY WROTE Some very kind (tough but kind) things about me on his blog last week and then entered into a dialogue about those things in the comment section. Other people have asked me about the things he said: are they true?
First, thank you Serge. I’m honoured by your kindness. And by your toughness as well. Iron sharpens iron, I pray.
Yes, indeed. They are true, as noted in the comments to an earlier post and as you might ascertain from my other website. Thing is I thought I was being upfront and honest about all of this and, maybe I was a little sly here or there. But yes, I was ordained a while ago in the Indy Movement, and the question the question was first what does that mean and second what do I do now?
So I came to the conclusion that “real” is only in the context of a community and that maybe I should dump or get off the pot, to use a colloquial phrase. The reasons are many but most essentially: I feel I dicked around long enough and failed. This is my second chance. As I’ve written in these pages – and even confessed – despite always having a sense of being called I never set still long enough for the church to give me an answer yes or no. Would I have bowed to a negative answer? Irrelevant. I didn’t wait, I ran and ran and ran and at the age of nearly 45 I had to say I was a failure because of running.
So, I stopped running.
It’s harder work, yes. And it will never have the respect of some of my friends or readers that a “real” church might get, but that’s not the point.
Sadly, I probably won’t be able to concelebrate with some of my closest friends at their churches. But I am able to invite them to mine and they are able to come. So we’re good.
Why did I end up where I did? Because I rather liked Bishop Craig in conversations on the phone and on line – and last week, in person.
It was, in my book, a case of sanity: a quality often missing in the Indy community. And, actually, it was a case of like experience and Episcopal connexion and, most importantly, that he was willing to support me in my drive of “Eastern Rite Anglicanism”. Serge and his readers have noticed the the U-Anglicans are very much on the liberal end of the theological spectrum. And I’ve said in these pages (and elsewhere) that I don’t jive with that too often. But I also believe in open communion and inclusion of gay and lesbian folks… and the list goes on. And my own theological traditionalism doesn’t seem to bother these folks.
Another Bishop that seemed very much “up my alley” was Tim Cravens. Most especially theologically. But I’m a bit of a liturgical experimenter – viz my history with St Gregory of Nyssa parish – and Bp Tim seems not to go in for that sort of stuff. I’m a theological traditionalist, with a handful of my own liberalisms, who believes in traditional liturgy – but with some jazz riffs thrown in for good measure. In short, I am a Protestant – like a good many in the Indy Sacramental movement – and I’m honest about it. Some would claim that *all* in the movement are, but I’ll leave the polemics up to others. As a Protestant member of the Indy Sacramental movement, I think I found a good home.
The indy world is very small, of course, and inbred. The Bishop who was my consecrator also consecrated Bp Tim. In turn he was consecrated by one of the “Episcopal Offspring” of The Russian Orthdoox Church in America, another indy body out there whom I discovered through Axios. All connected.
As Serge noted, I’m not claiming to be Orthodox, just Eastern Rite. I confected a liturgical set from some surprising sources. Pictures as they happen. I am as I always have been, a liturgical hunter-gatherer.
Why, you will ask, given all that, didn’t I just stay Episcopalian? I really don’t like where ECUSA is going just now, although I am happy to worship in Anglican parishes in the USA and Canada and I make my confession to an Episcopal priest when I can get near enough to him. I really really believe the importance of staying in communion with those who would fight you. ECUSA is missing out on her conservative voices and the continuum is missing out on the liberal ones. The Elizabethan Settlement is falling apart before our eyes and no one seems really to care although a lot of folks care to offer blame. And while I only put the lie to my own words by doing so, I’d be happier in a place where such fights do not *also* effect my wage and pension.
My Antimension arrived yesterday from Bishop Craig. Just in time to prepare for the Patronal festival of our community – the Feasts of All Saints of (North and South) America. This was also the feast on which I was Chrismated. Your prayers are coveted.
Tags: Anglo-Byzantine, indy, Ontology, personal | Category: Anglo-Byzantine, Ontology, personal
Discussion: You came too late to this party
Share:
Thank you, my friend.
The only issue I still have is…
Bishop Cravens, whom I know, is AFAIK unequivocally Christian like the Episcopal Church is on paper.
I wouldn’t be able to reconcile personal theological orthodoxy with belonging to a non-Christian group as the UAC appears to be. If something spells out it thinks non-trinitarianism is OK it may have wonderful people but it’s not Christian.
My only reply to that is – as with some other things – this group makes room on paper for people that other denominations have in their midst already, including, by my experience, Orthodoxy. Personally, I have trouble seeing Christianity without the trinity: it makes no sense to me at all. Likewise the incarnation. But I can pray for the unitarians or modalists, and with them, even. I’m ok with that. I will hold them in fellowship and prayer.
Huw,
You are truly a friend of mine and one that I cherish. We have had some wonderful conversations and I hope to continue those. Although we will never be able to serve the Liturgy together I consider you as much a priest as I am. We have gone down different paths but we ended up in the same place.
One thought I had was that the Church of the Apostles was an Indy church at one point was it not?
Thanks for the further comment, my friend. I’m with Fr Peter but again if the Trinity is just an opinion in the UAC, not only is it not Anglican (Bishop Craig doesn’t get to meet the Queen every 10 years at Lambeth – big deal) but… it’s not a Christian church. I’d say you’re a priest only out of communion like Fr Peter said but ISTM you’re in the same position as a Unitarian minister suiting up and doing the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom. I like you but right now you’re outside of Christianity. I have a feeling you won’t stay there.
You may be right. But right now I’m banking on sanity. I also rather like this story from the Fathers:
I like the Desert Fathers too.
Let me begin by saying thank you to +Huw for all his kind words, and for all of you and your interest and concern (for better or worse) in and about the UAC.
One of the things we have very intentionally done is seek to distance ourselves from the Independent Sacramental Movement, where many (but not all) seem to be much very involved in arguments about who has the prettiest vestments, the best lines, and a host of other things that for us are largely irrelevant. You can say we aren’t Christian for whatever reason you like. In our hearts we know what we are. You can say we are not Anglican because we don’t visit the queen (or any other reason), and that’s fine with us – we know we are. For us, living an authentic life of faith isn’t about getting into arguments about doctrine or other definitions. Living an authentic life of faith is responding to God’s call to care about those whom we here God calling us to care for. If for you God is calling you to police certain doctrine or dogma, we say “God bless you on that journey, but it isn’t ours.”
In the end, we believe that we are called to focus not on our differences but on what we share in common. We take seriously God’s call to love our neighbor, and we believe that all people are our neighbors. If you don’t agree with us, that’s really quite ok. We will be happy to visit with you, chat with you, share our experiences, our joys and concerns, and when you are in our churches you are certainly welcome to receive the sacraments and participate fully in the life of the Church.
In the earliest Church, before Constantine did Christianity the great disservice of making it “official”, there wasn’t much fuss about how to remove those who were not of like thought. In fact, there was great plurality of thought. This can perhaps be seen most clearly today through the non-canonical gospels. Clearly, the people who wrote and read these documents found Christ in them – before, and I would suggest even after – they were declared inadequate by the establishment. As an apophatic theologian, I experience a God who is infinitely vast and who transcends my experience of God (and, in fact, transcends all that is). I don’t find myself called to pass judgment on or invalidate others’ experience of God.
In the end, if you don’t agree with us or find us lacking, we still love you and wish you well – and most importantly you are still welcome here. We believe that perspective allows us a diversity that affords us a richness we could not otherwise achieve. That perspective has also afforded us the opportunity to enjoy rich friendships with folks from the mainline traditions as well.
What’s more, we do not see ourselves in competiton with anyone – most especially the Episcopal Church. We in the Universal Anglican Church exist to serve those who have fallen through the cracks of the Institutional Church. We never have, and never will, put our fliers on cars in the parking lot of any other church. To paraphrase Popeye, we are who we are. There are more than enough hurting people in this world to serve, and so we certainly don’t need to compete with one another. Take us or leave us, that’s perfectly fine. In any event, we will continue to have what I dare say is one of the better records in the Independent Movement of actually being Church. Our clergy are required to have active, verifiably ministries – including bishops, who must have ministry outside of their episcopacy. As a result, we have found that our energies are much better directed toward doing ministy than toward excluding others or getting embroiled in arguments.
Speaking for myself, I very much enjoyed meeting +Huw and Brodie in Cleveland the weekend before last. They are good people, and I am better for knowing them both!
Wishing all of you God’s Peace!
+Craig Bergland
Bishop Craig,
Good point. There are men of honour like my friend Bishop Cravens but we all know that ‘Independent Sacramental Movement’ (vagantes) has come to mean ‘people playing priest’.
You can say we aren’t Christian for whatever reason you like. In our hearts we know what we are… For us, living an authentic life of faith isn’t about getting into arguments about doctrine or other definitions. Living an authentic life of faith is responding to God’s call to care about those whom we here God calling us to care for. If for you God is calling you to police certain doctrine or dogma, we say “God bless you on that journey, but it isn’t ours.â€
Apples and oranges, Your Grace. It’s not an insult about your love of God and man etc., just a statement of fact like Jews and Muslims who accept the Trinity are no longer Jews or Muslims but Christians. Likewise Christians who drop the Trinity become non-Christians. The Unitarians are up-front about their non-Christianity.
‘We’re pre-Nicene Christians’ is also used by Mormons.
You can say we are not Anglican because we don’t visit the queen (or any other reason), and that’s fine with us – we know we are.
‘I’m in the NHL. They don’t pay me and I’m not allowed on the ice but what matters is I know what I am. Next year, the Stanley Cup!’ Sorry, Bishop. I don’t go Humpty-Dumpty with words. I work with words for a living.
Your Grace,
I appreciate the commitment to loving affirmation you bear witness to in your response here, and on the Universal Anglican site. It is quite clear that we will be required to answer for our response to the hungry, naked, and outcast on the Day of Judgment, and not for our views on supralapsarianism.
It does, however, seem rather peculiar to me that Universal Anglicans affirm “that the historic creeds of the undivided Church provide a clear and indisputable summary of the Christian faith” while at the same time allow for a rejection of the very content of those creeds, specifically the worship of God as Holy Trinity. Have you read the (so-called) Athanasian Creed lately? I can’t see how this document can be accepted as an indisputable summary of the Christian faith by a group which welcomes a view that rejects the Trinity, while still wishing to be identified as Christian in any historic sense.
I’m sure you have had this discussion many times before – in fact, you’ve had it right here with The young fogey. My aim at adding my voice to this discussion is not to convince you of anything. It is simply to show you why some people find the self-identification of the Universal Anglicans as “Christian” to be confusing.
- peter
I like that story, Huw. In many ways, I want to be that Orthodox saint – someone who is faithful to the story that has been handed down to me yet doesn’t allow that to become a barrier to those who might interpret that story differently – or who have a completely different story altogether. I find this very difficult to do, though. I’ll continue to pray for you as you make your journey of faith. Pray for me as well.
Thanks for the kind words, Huw and Young Fogey. (And good to see you, Young Fogey, at the Second Council of Philadelphia at the Abbaye!)
Just to clarify where the Independent Catholic Christian Church, the jurisdiction of which I am a part, stands on both theology and liturgy — we are firmly creedally orthodox, believing quite strongly in the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Atonement through Christ’s death and physical Resurrection. Our commitment to the historic Christian faith as expressed in the creeds is not confined to paper, unlike some church bodies, as Young Fogey mentions. I do applaud the UAC for being honest about their views, even if we don’t agree. The ICCC is focused on preaching and living out our faith as we understand it and not worrying so much about what other faith communities are doing.
Liturgically, we embrace diversity — there are five approved rites, the Byzantine, the traditional and contemporary versions of the Roman Rite, and the traditional and contemporary versions of the Anglican Rite. There is a lot of latitude for how these rites are celebrated, within limits. I am very traditional myself, using the Anglican Breviary for the Office and the English and Anglican Missals for my daily Mass, but we certainly have people who are much more contemporary in their liturgical preferences. I guess it would depend on exactly what liturgical experimentation actually entailed as to whether it would be approved.
I would completely agree with what Craig says “We in the Universal Anglican Church exist to serve those who have fallen through the cracks of the Institutional Church. We never have, and never will, put our fliers on cars in the parking lot of any other church. To paraphrase Popeye, we are who we are. . . . Take us or leave us, that’s perfectly fine.” That would describe the ICCC’s approach as well, avoiding getting embroiled in arguments — even if who we are is rather different from the UAC.
+Tim you win on random “Gravatar” designs!
Thank you for stopping by. I know (online) Fr Chris although I think this is the first time we’ve spoke. You and I have a “common ancestor” in John Plummer.
My own experimentation in this area has been following the Brothers at New Skete – the service is shorter, the repetition is reduced, etc… It drives some Eastern Rite traditionalists bonkers, but it’s enjoyable :-) I stick to the “Byzantine Daily Worship” format most of the time just now b/c the Good Brothers at New Skete seem to be woefully slow slow slow slow. (Nearly 4 weeks and they’ve not even cashed my check yet!)
Huw
That’s a bit odd, Huw. I mailed an order for New Skete’s “Psalter” and “Troparia and Kondakia” on May 10 and got the books on May 22. Previous orders have taken maybe a bit longer sometimes, but their lag time hasn’t been all that bad.
Ya… I used the address on the catalogue so I know I wasn’t off. I’m tempted to think it’s some sort of sign: I sent them an email – and heard nothing back. I sent them (by snail) a request for a catalogue and heard nothing back. Then I sent them a check. And heard nothing back.
In revising what I was writing, I deleted one key point about the ICCC — we are also very strongly committed to offering the sacrament of ordination to male, female, heterosexual, and lgbt Christians and the sacrament of marriage to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples. More info can be found at http://www.inclusivecatholics.com.
And Huw – congratulations on your decision to stop running and take a stand.
Thanks!
Perhaps, in looking at the responses to the whole Trinity issue, I should say something more. We (the UAC) come out of a place (Anglicanism) where the historic creeds were very important, but we live in a time where – especially to folks raised outside the Church – they speak a language which is not understood. My job is to communicate and to love. Do you really believe that Jesus only came to redeem males (“for us men and our salvation, he came down from heaven” 1979 BCP Rite I)? If not, haven’t we changed the Creed? We don’t exlude anyone, regardless of how they feel about the creed (which, incidentally, is not to be found intact in the scripture but rather has bee extrapolated from it). More importantly, we absolutely reject litmus tests of orthodoxy. It seems clear to me from the biblical record that Jesus didn’t believe in the Trinity, and yet some would have the Trinity become the definition of whether or not one is a Christian. I find that curious. I find it even more curious that Trinity Sunday is the Sunday that every Christian preacher I know *dreads* preaching – largely because they can’t explain it either, and yet some would have it be a litmus text of membership in the club. You certainly are entitled to that position, of course. I simply find it curious.
As for the whole thing about having to be in the Communion (meet the Queen) to be Anglican, the Communion is a product of the late 19th Century. Do you really mean to suggest that Richard Hooker, Thomas Cranmer, et. al. were not Anglican? While we’re at it, which Lutherans are the real Lutherans, which Methodists are the real Methodists, and all of you independent catholic folks clearly cannot be – at least according to this logic.
What I find most curious of all is this attempt to control the thought and/or behavior of others through definition. I am not into thought or behavior control. We operate from a classically Anglican perspective of being light on doctrine. I would go so far as to say that most doctrine does little more than to exclude those who disagree with the doctrine, and the Christ I know simply didn’t exclude. We also operate with a somewhat Congregational polity, allowing our ministries nearly total autonomy – something more Christ like than Church like.
I believe, with some of my Pentecostal brothers and sisters, that we are on the verge of the fourth great awakening. I believe the Institution has “defined” itself into near irrelevance – and now, seeing the control of its members slipping away, is trying to tighten the ropes even more. Perhaps I am not a Christian – in fact, if what being a Christian is involves being terribly concerned with what everyone else is doing and spending my time deciding who is in the club and who is out, I don’t want to be a Christian. You can have it then, because if that is what Christianity has devolved into I don’t want any part of it.
Just call me a follower of Jesus. That’s more than enough for me.
Wow, what a cool discussion.
I can’t explain the Trinity, of course: one thing I’m glad I don’t have to do in the ER. It’s a mystery. It is, however, essential to my understanding of Christianity. I don’t think one “believes” in the Trinity the way we mean the word any more.
And while doctrinally I’m not ready to ditch the Trinity, the Incarnation or the Eucharist – I don’t pretend to understand them at all. I only understand that without them I’m not saved (made whole). But it is my sense of these three pillars of the faith that leads me to univeralism and therefore to reject breaking fellowship with those who can’t wrap their brains around something that I can’t either. I don’t think I’m playing minimalism, either. I’m quite a maximalist when it comes to my understanding of the Body of Christ present and active in the world. But I’m not willing to draw boundaries around it.
I’ve tried that once & it didn’t work, although it gave me a certain level of pride to think I was finally right.
I will settle for “your master eats with harlots and drunkards” and try to refrain from judging others – as the Saints taught. I think my Bishop is on board with me in this credo.
See the above story that I quoted: it’s not by doctrine, but love and that meaning Hospitality. Come pray with me. Come, taste and see that the Lord is good. And him I will let work out the rest of it in your heart by his grace.
Amen! Amen! Amen!
Congratulations on your “coming out” – your thoughtful and well tempered voice will (and has) greatly add to conversations within the OC/IC community.
Huw, we’ve had some discussion on these issues before, and you know that I have friends in strange places.
Bp. Craig, I really was not trying to play games with you. The welcoming stance of the Universal Anglican Church is certainly not modeled on the creed falsely ascribed to St. Athanasius the Great, so it struck me as very peculiar that this document would be referred to in such a prominent position on the About Us page, and in such positive terms. It does seem a little disingenuous for the UAC to describe it the way it does.
While I don’t shy away from frank conversation, I try to adhere to the spirit underlying St. Paul’s words in Romans 14:4. “Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand.” If my earlier words caused offense, please forgive me.
- peter