Martyn Percy, a former Dean of Christ Church in Oxford, is leaving the CofE. Not because the church is too liberal, but because it is not liberal enough: And properly so. What is notable to me about this situation is not that the priest is leaving, but his reason for leaving. It just reinforces my theory that our framing of the divisions in the church as being "liberal" and "conservative" are wrong. What we are seeing is not a division in the church, but a formation of a new church -- a different church with a different Gospel, different sacraments, different holy books, and an entirely different concept of God and salvation. We have the traditional, orthodox (small 'o'), historic Christianity on the one side, with the well-known Protestant/Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox subdivisions within it. We have the Holy Bible as the wellspring of our knowledge about Christ (whether the 66-book corpus of Protestants or the added apocrypha/pseudepigraphica in other traditions) -- Christianity holds that the Bible is not just about God but is written by God himself. It is God's own very Word to us as a rulebook for life. And on the other side we have this new religion founded not upon Jesus Christ but upon the primacy of the individual as the master of their own fate, of the absolute abolition of any concept of sin or redemption through Christ, an insistence on gender as a social construct, and an enshrinement of human sexuality and bodily mutability as essential concepts of self. This new church, being a syncretic offshoot of the Christian church, still retains the lingering iconography and conceptual framing of Christianity, but it shares almost none of the underlying theology. This new faith considers the Bible at best to be a flawed human document reflecting the now-outdated concepts and mores of a patriarchal near-eastern culture now more than two millennia gone; at worst they consider it a book of fables, myths, and correspondence that no longer has any relevance at all to modern humanity. I am certainly not the first to make this observation -- this process has been underway for more than a century now. But it's becoming too obvious to ignore at this point. What we have now is not a disagreement between groups within a religious tradition, as it was during the Reformation era. What we are seeing is the rise of a whole new religion -- a religion that is secular, rationalistic, individualist, and focused on the carnal rather than the spiritual; yet one that is at the same time evangelical, sacramental (for what else is the abortion debate about, really, other than radical bodily autonomy, and abortion as an expression of that autonomy), and liturgical. They have their own prophets, their own saints**, holy books, and holy sites. To wind this back around to Rev. Martyn's dramatic leave-taking, what we see is not abandonment but rather a formal conversion from one faith to another.* If you think I'm being histrionic, consider this: The TEC (of course it's TEC) is pushing to remove baptism as a requirement for receiving communion. *None of this is to absolve the CofE of its institutional failures, mind you. The CofE has been starved of good leadership for decades. **From the TEC article linked above: "Others testified in support of Resolution C019, which would create a feast day celebrating the late civil rights icon John Lewis, who was a longtime congressman from Georgia when he died in 2020."
The Episcopal Church is not pushing to remove baptism as a requirement for communion; a lone bishop of a single diocese asked for it to be put on the agenda for this year’s GC. I don’t know a single fellow Episcopalian who agrees with it, and my sense is that opposition to it is widespread and its failure is more likely than not. Now that all the reactionaries have left, the denomination as a whole is quite conservative with respect to the 1979 BCP and leaving its framework intact, including the theology underlying the Baptismal Covenant. Smug, haughty remarks like “of course, it’s the TEC” achieve nothing positive. The Episcopal Church remains the Anglican Church in the U.S., and I as an Episcopalian ought to be able to expect to not be maligned repeatedly by schismatics on an ostensibly “Anglican” forum. I have been in Episcopal parishes all across the country, and not once have I heard “heresy” preached from the pulpit or seen anything that could be interpreted as anti-Christian. In every case I have witnessed nothing but a kind, welcoming spirit that made me feel very much at home. I am sure there are exceptions to this, as there are in every church. Making hay over exceptions and aberrations as though they are the rule is dishonest. The post wasn’t even about the Episcopal Church. There was no need to throw in a snide remark about it at the end in order to make the larger point you were arguing for. That’s petty.
from the link “a measure proposed by the Diocese of Northern California” That’s my diocese. Interestingly this week I made an appointment with the priest at my local Episcopalian church to talk about possibly attending services there, and during our talk he mentioned that he no longer invites all baptized Christians to come to the altar, but rather just invites all Christians.
Archbishop Glenn Davis of Sydney weighs in on same-sex marriage issue as a salvific issue. The same forces that separated TEC/Church of Canada and caused the formation of ACNA are having the same effect in Australia, it seems. And AMiE is growing in England:
Oh, I agree, but it just goes to the point of my original post: the fracture in Anglicanism (and much of the rest of the Christian world) is not a simple matter of being theologically liberal or conservative. It is a difference between two entirely different religions, in many ways more fundamental than that between, e.g., Christianity and Judaism (or even Christianity and Islam).
More like a fusion of Harnack/Ritschl Christian historical rationalism fused with Frankfurt School cultural Marxism (with a heaping helping of Rousseau's carnalism). It's basically what's left of Christian belief after it's been filtered through Enlightenment philosophy. Thomas Jefferson was vanguard of this movement way back in the 18th century.
It makes no sense, but they’re doing it anyway. If they aren’t baptized, they aren’t Christians (yet). They just want the national church to give it their rubber stamp. It is ultimately an individual obligation though (to respect the requirement of baptism before Communion). I would be honest with the priest that you disagree with the practice, but I wouldn’t let that stop you from going. Just my two cents.
To be fair though, there are many 'drifted' Anglicans who don't know it they have been baptised or not, if their parents are no longer alive to ask, "Did you have me done when I was a baby". If baptism is to be insisted upon we shall have to cope with the fact that many 'drifted', 'believers?' may be getting double baptised in an affort to make sure they "get it done". It won't then be long before some ardent ex baptist 'minister' come Anglican starts dropping infant baptism altogether as being 'not the proper thing' and insisting his congregation all get re-baptised, 'Anabaptist style' to make sure they're all properly 'done'. Baptism is of course important but let's not forget that it was not important enough to Jesus Christ for him to have actually baptised even his own disciples with water. Neither was it so important to Paul the Apostle that he could recall all of the names of the few in Corinth that he had baptised. It is not even possible for an observer to know if another is baptised in the Holy Spirit, and that is the baptism that is truly imperative for 'believers', to become members of the invisible Church, so why insist on proof of water baptism before admission to communion in the visible church? Confirmation is what should be the requirement for Anglicans and an open table for guests of other denominations who are in good standing with their own Christian Communities. I have certainly never been asked by any member of the congregation I attend, "have you been baptised and confirmed", and I am certain none of them were there to witness either event in my life when they actually took place 76 years ago and 64 years ago. As for the baptism in the Holy Spirit - no one was witness to that except myself, Christ and The Holy Spirit, about 53 years ago. We simply trust one another's integrity, just as it should be. .
These are all very good points, and I’m glad you mention. One of the things I appreciate about Anglicanism is the willingness to explore all sides of an issue, rather than cite an abstract principle or quote a random Bible verse as though that somehow settled the matter. That being said, the pattern in Scripture and the unbroken practice of the Church is that baptism must precede communion. To state that as a principle or a rule is one thing. On the other hand, I have never known any clergy - even when I was Eastern Orthodox - to require proof on the spot. In those situations, the priest has little choice but to take the congregant at her word. The whole thing really is on the honor system. However, I do think there is room for pastoral flexibility, to address the kinds of situations you’ve described, on a case by case basis. It’s still important that it remain clear what the rule is, in spite of any exceptions, however legitimate.
I wish I’d expressed more confusion about that when he mentioned it, but the water is under the bridge. The priest is from an evangelical background and I wonder if this suggestion from the diocese aligns with his prior formation.
I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that he's leaving the C of E because it is not liberal enough. The main thrust of the article appears to me to say he is leaving because of safeguarding issues. He does not think the C of E is a safe place to be.