At Cornell University I wrote semi-regularly for the Cornell Review. Subtitle the “conservative voice on campus”. Most of my articles focused on (1) abortion or (2) analyzing and critiquing the mass media. If anything I would say the latter was my specialty. Paying close attention to how people present – or misrepresent – things.
In the current Anglican Unpleasantness I observe rather a lot of misrepresentation. Here I mention a comparatively mild example in a recent issue of the Christian Century: FindArticles – Splitting up: Anglican angst Christian Century, May 20, 2008, by Jason Byassee.
The article is mostly a discussion of how and why there been several Anglican-but-not-Episcopal congregations forming in the Chicago area. Fair enough. And this article does a much better job than the typical pro-Episcopal-Church-hatchet-jobs in which those who break away from the Episcopal Church are portrayed in the least positive and generous light as possible (to put it mildly). The main positive is that the article allows conservative Anglicans to express how their reasons for leaving the Episcopal Church are much broader and deeper than “just” the issue of same-sex relations. It is about doctrine, biblical authority, the uniqueness of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.
But what the article gives with the left hand it takes with the right.
- The success of breakaway parishes is because of “charismatic leaders” (it is not about conviction but about ego)
- Those African Anglicans are not just against homosexuality they are against women becoming priests (the example of Rev Sausele is the exception who proves the rule) so conservative and breakaway Anglicans are not just anti-gay they are anti-women
- The Rwandan church – which is particularly involved in many breakaway parishes – is deeply hypocritical
- The Episcopal Church tolerated them but they would not tolerate being part of the Episcopal Church (quoting Bishop Persell of Illinois)
- When Sausele asks “isn’t the she [the Presiding Bishop] a biologist?” the writer “corrects” her by pointing out “actually she is a geologist” – no the Presiding Bishop is a marine biologist (if you want to show how someone is uninformed get your facts straight)
But the humdinger comes at the end of an article that sows seeds of distrust for these breakaway Anglican parishes.
Theologians from Augustine onward have insisted that the effort to leave one church to start a better one results not in a better church but a worse one–and it also fosters the bad habit of defection. The history of Western Christendom attests to the wisdom of this view. The question for the Anglican Mission in the Americas is whether antagonism toward the Episcopal Church is enough to shape a coherent Anglican identity in a complex global setting.
You have got to be kidding me. What is Anglicanism except the attempt to leave one church and start a better one? And when you are part of an organization whose current leadership is dominantly and openly hostile to what you believe is (a) what the larger Anglican vision is all about and (b) not to mention what most of the rest of global Anglicanism is about – what else are you supposed to do?!?
(How about “the effort to leave one abusive relationship and start a better one results not in…”)
The cynical question Byassee tacks onto the end of his piece is half legitimate. On the one hand no it is not all about antagonism – unless by antagonism you mean “we cannot stand a group that so opposes what we are believe in”. If I believe in freedom then I must oppose oppression. So… does that mean my convictions are defined by “antagonism to oppression”?
But on the other hand I do detect a lack of unity among those who are unhappy with the leadership and direction of the rather liberal Episcopal Church. Heck – conservative Anglicans in the United States often concede this. If the Episcopal Church represents what Anglicanism is not - then what is it? Is there a coherent vision that defines and/or describes the quintessence of Anglican Christianity?
