The Players
I have said as I believe that the Anglican Church currently exists in a stat on non-formal Schism, and I would further state that there are three camps within the Anglican Church, these Camps are the "Progressives", the Anglo-Catholics, and the Anglo-Protestants. The Anglo-Catholics and the Anglo-Protestants can be grouped together under a more general title of "Traditional". All three sides are interlocked in a fight to the death for they perceive the heart of Christianity to be. Anglo-Catholics are Sacramentalists who for the most part since the Oxford movement have attempted a return to authentic Catholic beliefs. Anglo-Protestants tend to be "Evangelical"(whatever that means), they tend to reject doctrines such as the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, they also reject 5 of the 7 Sacraments and tend to believe in Sola Scriptura and in some cases Sola Fide. Now it should be noted that there are varying degrees of Anglo-Catholics and Anglo-Protestants with the Anglo-Papists on one side of the spectrum and the "Evangelical" Sola Fide Sola Scriptura on the other side of the spectrum with most "Traditional" Anglicans falling somewhere between the two(though it is false to say "in the middle" as its not quite so linear). The Progressives on the other hand hold that Christianity is a social religion, at its heart Christ is a good socialist and social worker brining about social justice(admittedly I don't have a clue what any of these things actually mean other than some vague universal utilitarian equality with a dash of relativism).
The Game
The game is a war game between the three factions (as well as all subfactions which are at war with each other within the larger factions) and involves a good deal of blood shed and mutual hatreds. The object is to see which of the three groups can control more of the Church while maintaining the existence of the other two groups to use for political gain. Most who lead these different factions are in reality little interested in the Truth of the Gospel and more interested in being right at all costs(even at the cost of truth).
A Foot note on other Players
I find it necessary to here mention what has happened to some of the smaller factions in each camp as it will be important to the story later. There are those factions which have become tired of the fighting and have realized that there is no salvation in or for the larger apostate Anglican Communion. Some of these are Anglo-Catholics while others are Anglo-Protestants.
Who is winning and how or perhaps we should ask why?
There can be no question that within this battle the "Progressives" are winning and they are doing it in the most clever way. A man by the name of Antonio Gramsci was imprisoned under Mussolini and a very little known fact is that he is the most influential man of the modern world. Some may say "I have never heard of him how can he be that influential?", and it is exactly because you ask that question that it proves the effectiveness of his influence. His books popular among intellectual Marxists, while most people are only familiar with "Orthodox Marxism" Gramsci laid out a plan of subversion in which you would spoon feed a nation Marxism until it one day woke up to mysteriously find itself Marxist. This is the technique which has been used by the most successful progressives in all realms of life from the political to the religious.
One very successful way which this has been carried out in the Anglican Church is to use "local option" to introduce certain practices which are at first outright rejected by all but the most Heterodox. The policy of the highest leaders in the Anglican Communion is to have assigned to positions of leadership "non-idealists" who will not "stir the pot"; the result is that when a "Progressive" manages to stay closeted until their election as Bishop they are allowed to get away with local option as to oppose them would mean stirring the pot. When a "Traditional" Bishop is elected/appointed(through keeping his mouth shut long enough) the advantage is to the "Progressives", as when the "Traditional" Bishop begins to object and protest very loudly he is promptly told by all the other "Conservative" Bishops to "sit down, shut up, and not make a sound" as he is disturbing the delicate balance and that it is only in this or that location.
The crux of the victory is the "Conservative" Bishops who's goal is to keep everyone united at all costs; conservative means "we will let you have everything you have up to this date but no more". It is death by compromise, the "Progressives" introduce a novel practice and are allowed to introduce it so long as they agree not to introduce any more practices, they then wait some years or decades and introduce another new practice. In the mean time they have quite a number of "theologians" producing endless works that by sheer volume dilute Christian practices and beliefs. For every 1 book defending Traditional Christianity (Either Protestant or Catholic), they produce 50 diluting it either in direct contradiction or through more subtle means. This serves the delightful purpose of turning the ordinary laymen mind to mush, and (having wormed their way into the seminaries) it also allows them to choose a curricula those books which fit their agenda.
If it is a more conservative seminary which the "Progressive" professor has worked their way into he would not be so bold as to use a book which is easily spotted as heresy but would instead choose a book which uses more watered down language. Perhaps a text which speaks about the Christian need for "Social Justice" or how we all are the "Eucharist" or(if he is bolder) "How it is the laity which is the Church not the simply the Bishops and Priests"(in an attempt to deemphasize the importance of the clergy). The favorite tool of the "Progressive" professor is to emphasize the importance of Christians in the role of "Social Justice"(though if it is a really conservative seminary then he will be forced to spend less time emphasizing it but when you have 3 or 4 professors doing this regularly it makes little difference). and then over time the number of "Progressive" professors increase and the students are continually misformed.
Then the newly ordained priests return to their diocese and begin to (unknowingly) introduce heresy and heterodoxy, and begin to over emphasize aspects of "Social Justice" and begin to use Christ as an example of a social activist. It is subtle at first, and then the newly ordained Priest seeking truly to help better guide his flock begin to seek out books which will help educate him further on the meaning of Christ and Christianity and lo what does he find. The processes is a slow radicalization, but for those who are not so open it creates an apathy towards important subjects as when they arrived at the seminary they were very traditional and have had it painfully explained and demonstrated that it is not worth "stirring the pot".
So while X diocese has introduced Priestesses all other dioceses are told to shut up, the subversive professors create an openness in the next generation of Priests who create an openness in the parishioners, also taking into account that one day one of these "Conservative" apathetic Priests will become Bishop or better yet one of the more "Progressive" Priests.
There is one more trick to the matter though and that is the need for the Radical Heterodox. By creating Bishops who allow Priestesses in a few areas you now make the whole body weaker, however in order to allow the Heterodox disease spread(Priestesses are not the only example) you need to create a misplaced middle as this entire plan hinges on compromise. To give example introduce Priestesses in 3 diocese, through the progression of time and the above methods more and more diocese introduce Priestesses as common practice and those who raise a ruccas are silenced. Now in one place introduce the blessings of homosexual couples and allow it to be portrayed as even more radical, all the mean while lending priests to simi-traditional bishops and introducing the heterodox Ideas(Don't repeat this but I just don't understand why your Bishop wont accept women, its not nearly as bad as gay marriage and women can do just as good a job as us men i think).
The Alternative
The "Progressives" having gained the stronghold as they have with the "Conservative" Bishops bending the their every will and putting a great deal of pressure on the Traditional Bishops to "not break communion" cannot be fought against. They have erected an impenetrable fortress for which to hide behind at even the slightest bit of trouble. There are but 2 Alternatives for a Bishop and a diocese who wish to remain loyal to either their Protestant or Catholic tradition as Christians, the first is Schism for which you are demonized beyond all belief(The Schism being a formal recognition of what has already happened). The second however is even worse than the first and requires exposing oneself to the enemy and in fighting the dragon they risk infection. The second alternative is to beat the "Progressives" at their own game. It will require a "Block" of Bishops some who will be martyrs(standing up and objecting loudly) and others who will be subverter's.
The defect to the second alternative is that in the over throw of the progressives we are still left with a divided Anglicanism with Low Church Protestant-Anglicans on one side and Anglo-Catholics on the other side. Now it is true that they could continue on subverting one another until one side wins, however I cannot help but to see this as an endless battle and a false communion.
The best alternative is that both the Protestant and the Anglican Catholics agree to leave the Progressives (not the Anglican Church) rejecting what they have done as apostate and having removed themselves from the Anglican body. And then to agree to a separation and dialog for truth with one another, this may take the form of either a formal separation ending in the establishment of the "Protestant Anglican Church" and the "Catholic Anglican Church", or it may take the form of a triple synod. One authoritative synod for the Protestants, one authoritative synod for the Catholics, and a joint agreement synod. The two bodies would have approximately 100 years to work through their problems with one another and come together or at the end of that time a formal split would be required as in truth neither side recognizes the other as having the fullness of the Christian faith and only through a more formal separation would more serious talks be possible. The meter which would be used to judge the progression of unity would be how much one side started to resemble the other or how much they started to resemble each other.
Those who have already left
For those who have already left the major problem is that they are too fractured and divided and that they are frankly too small. The only serious hope they have for a future is to join together (Protestants with Protestants, Catholics with Catholics) and attempt to reestablish Anglicanism through a joint effort. Each block (Catholic, Protestant) would exist independently however this does not exclude the possibility of cooperation, this (even without cooperation) would permit that body which most truly and fully represents the Anglican communion to expand and grow through cooperation and evangelization, however it would be required that they not recognize or acknowledge the legitimacy of the apostate "progressive" church.
One thing that would be required for both blocks is the continuation of universal synods(each block having its own) though the location is unimportant. They could govern themselves independent of one another and yet retain a mutual respect and constant dialog in hopes of further true unity in which they agree on matters of doctrine.
However the first priority should be to collect together those who have most in common Anglo-Catholics with Anglo-Catholics and Anglo-Protestants with Anglo-Protestants. The Ideal way for this to occur would be for one representative to invite All the post apostate church Bishops to a common synod in which to establish unity.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
There are four kinds of Anglicanism: Catholic, Central, Evangelical and Broad.
Its a different classification some i think is more detailed but some i think is off the mark. I place groups 1 2 and 3, in the same category, but while i place group four in its own category.
When I broke down the the first three groups represented there I broke them down into two groups.
The centeralists I broke into the Groups of Catholic and Protestants instead of creating their own special group but I made sure to mention that there is some middle ground but they are still either more protestant than Catholic or more Catholic than Protestant.
Actually there is only one kind of
Anglicanism and several parties that for social or political purposes pretend to be Anglican but have never had any intention of keeping their ordination vows. Given the rubrics of the English prayer books since Elizabeth I, only the folks who have done their best to keep the doctrine, discipline and worship therein are really consenting Anglicans. The Evangelicals and Anglo-papists are both low churchmen which means that they have a very low regard for the Church and no intention at all to be obedient. The evangelicals are fighting for the system and doctrine of the continental reformers while the Anglo-papists are playing at being Romanists without having to accept any external discipline while proving again and again that they have very little of the intrnal variety. The less said about so called central churchmen the better. The only thing that you want to know about them is whether the stripe down the middle of their black is white or yellow. The liberal conspiracy in Anglicanism began with the Anglo-papists whose general background of inherited wealth made them feel terribly guilty (but not enough that they would really give it away to the poor) lead them to become socialist or Marxists politically. It was also noticed very soon along the way that they were very tolerant of homosexuality. There private lives made hem very easy to blackmail and the evidence is that it was a fairly regular thing.
The bishops failed by letting everyone do their own thing as long as the pledges continued to come in. But eventually they were also elected for their inability to hold to the faith and practise which they professed. So slowly the noose closed. For thirty plus years almost no one was ordained in the Episcopal Church who was likely to have the backbone to say "no." These were weeded out by a psychological test divised by a firm of Jewish psychiatrists. Result, those of us who are and want to be real Anglicans are living in the ruins. The walls of our earthly Jerusalem have been torn down and we have no idea of how they can be rebuilt.
"Evangelical" (whatever it means) are most of the time money hungry hurr durrs, not a christians. Look at america and their protestants egoistic bunch, with their tele-evangelists and silly "internet apologists" with no theological/philosophical/any education... Is there really place to dialogue with them? Really?
Post a Comment