Is “The Network” based upon a foundation of sand?

A discussion starter

(I want "The Network" to succeed and therefore I offer this starter for discussion. )

The recently formed Network of thirteen dioceses within the ECUSA has stated that it intends to remain within the same ECUSA and live within the constitution and canons of the same Church. At the same time, some of its members have stated that it regards certain acts of the General Convention of 2003 and acts of the Presiding Bishop with other Bishops since then as unconstitutional. These are all to do with the permitting of same-sex blessings and ordaining/consecrating persons, particularly Gene Robinson of N.H., who is living in a same sex partnership. And the logic of this position is that. before the General Convention of 2003, there was nothing fundamentally wrong with the Constitution and Canons of the ECUSA – that is nothing that cannot be easily fixed.

In other words, what was agreed and done in late 2003 concerning sexual relations by the General Convention, and supported by a majority of dioceses, is judged by “The Network” as being unique in terms of the long list of innovations introduced and imposed by the General Convention since the 1960s.

There is no doubt but that sexual matters go to the core of human feeling and so an innovation which goes against the traditional taboos and standards of western culture – not to mention against Islamic and much tribal culture – and which pioneers new understanding, definitions and practical sexual arrangements within the human rights and personal fulfillment ethos of western culture, is going to create a lot of interest & condemnation around the world. So it is not surprising that Christian leaders of the global South as well as Muslim clerics have condemned the recent sexual innovations of the ECUSA. This widespread horror has given “The Network” a wave of background publicity and support, which have tended to strengthen its case in the public arena and media.

Yet, what is judged by conservative human culture to be an innovation and aberration of a uniquely serious kind may not be – in God’s way of judging things – uniquely wicked. In fact, it may, for example, be the fruit, the growth or the result of an earlier innovation (or innovations) which in God’s sight may be of a greater wickedness. And, it may well be the case that unless the earlier innovations are corrected then the official ECUSA sexual aberrations of 2003 will remain and will multiply.

In the case of the ECUSA, a very strong case can be presented for the position that the consecrating of Gene Robinson was the climax of, or one special fruit of, a process of the implementing of “justice” in the same ECUSA. That is, the real source of this innovation in “justice” are earlier major decisions taken by the General Convention and put into canon law (and to which, apparently, most of the members of “The Network” had/have no special disagreement).

Consider that since the 1970s the General Convention has taken as its theme a topic or phrase taken from the so-called “Baptismal Covenant” found in the Prayer Book that was approved in 1976 & 1979 to replace the received, classic “Book of Common Prayer”. One aspect of this covenant is that the baptized in the ECUSA are to work for “justice and peace”. These words have been consistently understood against the meaning given to them in the revolutionary 1960s. In other words, they belong to the culture of human rights and of personal therapeutic self-fulfillment. So, for example, it is justice to work for the right of a human being to have a life & experience which are true to her/his sexual orientation. And true peace in the church is only reached when each person is free and empowered to be who she or he really is.

In fact what “The Network” does not seem yet to have seen sufficiently clearly – and this is supremely important – is that the making of the 1979 Prayer Book [basically in essence “A Book of Alternative Services”] into the official Prayer Book of the ECUSA was a major change in the worship, doctrine, polity, discipline and morality of the ECUSA. It enabled the ECUSA to have the outward show of both a semi-traditional liturgy & the use of an ancient title, while pioneering the entry of all kinds of doctrinal, moral and practical innovations into the life of the Church. As a first example, take the very name given to the new Prayer Book of 1976/79 in which, regrettably, dishonesty is enshrined as a characteristic of the present ECUSA. Knowing that it was surely breaking the Commandment, “Thou shall not bear false witness”, but justifying itself on the basis that the end justified the means, the General Convention chose to call its new book of varied services (in which were all kinds of influences from feminism and the values of the 1960s) by the ancient and hallowed name of “The Book of Common Prayer,” as it also confined the authentic Book of Common Prayer to the status of a historical document. And then it proceeded to persecute those who chose to continue to use the classic Book of Common Prayer (i.e., the American 1928 edition which descends from the 1662 BCP).

Further, “The Network”, while it makes all kinds of claims concerning its commitment to the uniqueness of holy matrimony and of the latter being the only relation in which there would be sexual intercourse, does not yet seem to have realized that the canon law and the very position of not a few of the members of its dioceses actually stand for something other that the uniqueness of holy matrimony. That is, they stand – at least partially – for a conservative form of the divorce culture which has dominated American society since the 1950s. In other words, “The Network” has not yet publicly admitted and confessed that the allowing of divorced persons to be remarried in church, and the allowing of clergy to continue in office & pastoral leadership after divorce and remarriage, are in real terms a major contributing cause of the actions of General Convention in 2003 in allowing same-sex blessings and confirming the election of Gene Robinson as bishop. After all, if the so-called heterosexual person is given rights to personal fulfillment according to orientation in multiple marriage arrangements, why should not the homosexual person be treated in justice the same way? Further, there seem to have been no objections to Robinson based upon the fact that he is a divorced man and as such is unsuitable to be a bishop! Likewise, the trial of Bishop Righter several years ago was not on the charge that he has 3 wives alive but that he ordained a gay man – an amazing charge and brought by bishops now represented in “The Network”!

Then, also, “The Network,” by allowing without question the presence of ordained women, does not seem to have fully realized just how much the ordaining of women contributed to the change in doctrine and morality in the ECUSA and so is a major contributory cause to the consecration of Gene Robinson. Women were first ordained in the 1970s and it was very much seen by many then as an issue of justice and human rights. After they were ordained, the same justice cried out for a language to be in place in the liturgy & Bible which was true to their identity, and so it was that inclusive language came into the 1976/79 Prayer Book & Psalter and in greater measure – for God as well as humanity -- into the various Liturgies approved by General Convention in the period from 1980 to 2003. Further, belief in the ordination of women as of divine institution became in the 1990s an article of faith for office-holders in the ECUSA. We may note in passing that it has yet to be shown in full in a major study of the ECUSA just how the ordaining of women, as a 1960s project and as an issue of human rights and personal fulfillment, has been the cause of a very major change or adjustment in the doctrines of God, Christ, grace, salvation, sin, sacraments, anthropology and so on. Had women not been ordained certainly Mr. Robinson would never have been considered for consecration.

I suggest that for “The Network” truly to become by heavenly grace the righteous remnant of the ECUSA and to be a root, from which godly church order can grow, it surely must take seriously the fact that it is based upon a Formulary (the 1979 prayer book) and upon Canons which – even with the best will in the world – cannot be justly described as commending a biblical, Anglican orthodoxy. As a minimum, “The Network” needs to recover the classic Formularies – BCP, Ordinal & Articles -- in order to regain its Anglican identity and orthodoxy and at the same time do a most serious review of the Canons and the way that they are interpreted in order to know which it must set aside. And, of course, and importantly, to do this while seeking to worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness and to be active in mission and evangelism. We need to look in four directions at the same time – up to the enthroned Lord, back to the Scriptures and the classic Anglican tradition, forward in hope of the Parousia, and around in mission and evangelism.

Upon its present foundation, which is regrettably like sand, the courage and energy expended by devoted founders and members of “The Network” will most probably collapse, even though it has at the moment the vocal support of various Primates of the Anglican Communion (most of whom, I suspect, do not know the full story of the innovations of the ECUSA from the 1960s to 2004).

The Rev’d Dr Peter Toon Feb 9 2004 www.american-anglican.fsnet.co.uk