This is the second part of my two part critique of Fr. Timothy Fountain's article The Broad Church, The Orthodox, and GLBT’s; How Can The Minorities Live With The Majority published on Brad Drell's site three days ago.
In the first installment of this critique posted yesterday, I noted Fr. Timothy's emphasis on pastoral accomodation over and above doctrinal truth. That emphasis only becomes more pronounced in the remainder of his article.
We pick up today following his call for pastoral accomodation of LGBT people in orthodox parishes. Here he extends this call to the world-wide Communion.
This honesty must extend to international Anglican and ecumenical discussions. The Preface to the 1549 BCP describes a church in which people grow in holiness by regular attendance at Bible-expounding worship. While evangelicalism has a noble history within Anglicanism, radical conversion is not the dominant model of holiness in our tradition. Our foundational tradition is more at home with steady spiritual progress and sanctification.
This is an interesting assertion but unnecessarily limiting. Fr, Timothy draws a facile dichotomy between conversion and sanctification: two aspects of Christian living that are separated neither in scripture nor in tradition. As an evangelical, I believe that the process of sanctification necessarily flows out of conversion based justification. It is justification (through the conduit of faith alone) that ensures salvation, but if the process of sanctification does not ensue, if there is no change in life and habit, there is reason to suspect that conversion has not in fact occurred. As some put it: we are saved by faith alone; not by a faith that is alone. But anglo-catholics also emphasize both conversion and sanctification. Sanctification is the process of daily conversion: your habits of thought, speech and behavior are changed as you are conformed or gradually converted by holy discipline and the grace of the sacraments to the image and likeness of Christ. The difference between anglo-catholics and evangelicals is not over whether both conversion and sanctification take place, but the ground upon which one is saved. For evangelicals, salvation is grounded on justification and justification comes by faith alone. For anglo-catholics justification (being declared righteous by God) comes at the end of the process of sanctification, not logically prior (as it does for evangelicals) so that salvation is accomplished through the grace imparted to the believer who cooperates with that grace and bears the fruit of a changed life and good works.
In either case, evangelical or anglo-catholic, there is no room for accommodating sin. At no point in the process of sanctification would an evangelical or anglo-catholic say: “this sin is okay for now.” Particularly addictive or habitual sins may take longer than others to break and some sins may plague a believer for his entire lifetime, but he is never at liberty to make peace with them. Nor is the Church
Sins are to be exposed, fought, and mortified by the power of the cross and resurrection. That is the purpose of “a church in which people grow in holiness by regular attendance at Bible-expounding worship.”
When we fall, we get up, repent, and return to the Lord. There can be no peace with sin.
Fr. Timothy goes on to explain:
This isn’t a justification for SSUs and LGBT bishops (in fact, this approach should curb our zeal for innovation), but it is part of our contribution to the greater Christian community and it distinguishes us from Roman Catholic natural law and evangelical measures of conversion and holiness.
So our special charism, our great gift to Christendom, is our ability to be “honest”; to accommodate or at least consider (enter into dialogue with) open rebellion?
He goes on:
As I wrote above, we’ve accepted lots of local option and diversity in the past in order to hold one another in fellowship. We need to stand up for this (our church making a place for LGBT Christians) in ecumenical and inter-Anglican conversation.
As I wrote yesterday, this accommodation is precisely what has led to the disaster we are facing today. Had we stood firmly against these “local option” ordination and SSUs from the beginning VGR would not be a bishop today. Our past complacency is a dramatic failure for which we must repent. It is not a gift to be embraced or a precedent to follow.
But the most disturbing line of the above quoted section is this one:
...we’ve accepted lots of local option and diversity in the past in order to hold one another in fellowship.
This puts everything in place. The mission and goal for Fr. Timothy is institutional unity, or, “holding one another in fellowship.”
I have been working under the assumption the ultimate ssion and goal for the orthodox is the reformation of North American Anglicanism. If that can be accomplished whilst holding one another in fellowship, well and good. But if not, so be it.
This, I think, is what has disturbed me so about Fr. Timothy’s article and, even more, about the overwhelmingly positive response it has received from my fellow orthodox Anglicans.
What is our purpose here? What is our mission? Is it reformation or is it safety?
If it is reformation then ultimately that means that those pushing the LGBT agenda must either be expelled, excommunicated, or converted. Reformation means that the false teachers are not “accommodated,” not “held together in fellowship”. Why? Because they are leading souls away from Christ. They may be nice people. They may be pleasant to speak with on a personal level, but they are encouraging confused and lost people to follow a lifestyle that will ultimately devour their bodies and souls. The same is true for all heretics. That’s why Jesus calls them wolves. You don’t embrace wolves, you drive them away from the flock.
Moreover, if your goal is “safety”, you are deceived. Those pushing the LGBT agenda are on a mission too. Do you really think they’ll ultimately settle for even one safe orthodox neighborhood in any precinct of the Episcopal city? Are you kidding? No justice, no peace. They see our stance on homosexuality as fundamentally unjust as South African apartheid. To their minds we are oppressors. For them this is an essential justice issue. So long as any non-celibate homosexual person is denied access to Episcopal ordination or same-sex blessing, the fight will continue until we are expelled, excommunicated, or converted. Don’t be deceived. There is no peace.
Fr. Timothy goes on to articulate some challenges his proposals would pose to both sides:
But the church must challenge both groups as well as affirm them. Their reactions to perceived threats spread discord in the greater church, and ironically increase their own frustration and isolation.
Just as a side note, the moral equivalence in this paragraph is stunning. It is difficult to understand just how Fr. Timothy, an orthodox priest himself, could believe this. It is like visiting first century Corinth and suggesting that those proud and supportive of the man who has taken his father’s wife (1st Cor 5) on the one hand and St. Paul on the other are equally problematic.
In any case, here is his first challenge to the orthodox:
Build a consistent kingdom witness. The containment of LGBT political excess is not an end in itself. Rebuilding Biblical marriage in a hostile culture is important. Addictions of all kinds ravage lives. Gossips ruin churches. Sarcasm and pride increase cultural hostility. So nurture congregations that abound in the fruit of the Spirit. Certainly contend against the works of the flesh, but build loving, serving, discipling communities as you do.
I will definitely agree with this. Orthodox parishes must be orthodox. Here’s the second challenge:
Try to hang in as a loyal minority voice. For many reasons (not the least of which are plenty of other evangelical and Catholic places to go), attentively orthodox Christians are highly unlikely to become the majority in ECUSA. People come to ECUSA for a distinct approach to Christian formation. In accepting this, perhaps you can avoid the “heresy or schism?” decision. John Maxwell’s current N.Y. Times bestseller, The 360 Degree Leader, is a practical guide to exercising positive influence from the middle of an organization. Yes, if you are being forced to compromise on your absolute values, it is time to leave. But in most environments your presence can be a positive source of change, like several of history’s great reforming saints.
Wow, I am once more amazed by the clash of purposes here. Are we really in this thing to provide a “loyal minority voice”? Are we really willing to accept this: “orthodox Christians are highly unlikely to become the majority in ECUSA” as an enduring reality? The dominance of heterodoxy in the Episcopal Church is a relatively new reality; stretching over the last fifty or so years.
Is Fr. Timothy suggesting that for the sake of holding one another in fellowship we accept this new reality as a permanent state?
Fr. Timothy, do you really believe this? Brad Drell and all of you orthodox bloggers and commenters who so highly praised this piece, is this what you’ve been fighting for?
If so, count me out.
The “peace” offered in Fr. Timothy’s article is nothing short of a betrayal of the gospel and a betrayal of all those confused Episcopalians caught up in sexual sin.
As I said at the very beginning, I have a great deal of respect and admiration for Fr. Timothy and Brad Drell and all the rest of the commenters who have received this article with joy.
But I’m afraid Fr. Timothy’s work may have revealed a deep fissure in the orthodox party between those who are fighting for total reformation and those who are fighting to preserve a safe space for all sides.
Fissures are dangerous things. They lead to divisions. Divisions lead to defeat.
We must have a common purpose or we will fail and orthodoxy will be lost.
I don't want this to happen.
Fr. Timothy goes on to give a series of challenges to the LGBT and to the entire church but I think I’ve already dealt with the core premise and assertions of his piece.
For brevity’s sake I’ll end here with a challenge of my own to Fr. Timothy and to all of the orthodox:
Is the “peace with wolves” envisioned in this article supported or permitted in the New Testament? If so, please show me where.
If not, then it's time reassess. The mission envisioned by Fr. Timothy cannot be our mission. We must not seek peace above all, but above all seek to reestablish Anglican biblical orthodoxy in North America.
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams.
FReepmail sionnsar if you want on or off this moderately high-volume ping list (typically 3-9 pings/day).
This list is pinged by sionnsar, Huber and newheart.
Resource for Traditional Anglicans: http://trad-anglican.faithweb.com
More Anglican articles here.
Humor: The Anglican Blue (by Huber)
Speak the truth in love. Eph 4:15
ping
Father Fountain must have come under some pretty heavy PC peer pressure to have written something as "nonjudgemental" as this. It is analagous to those who serve as apologists for the terrorists - the logic of "yes they shouldn't be blowing up and decapitating innocents, but at the same time we need to accept our role in giving them no other option..."
While Father Fountain is justified in his belief that there is a value of faithful witness, even in the minority, this must only be in the context of mission - bringing salt and light to a congregation that is becoming increasingly pagan and deist.