Posted on 01/04/2009 8:02:58 AM PST by Huber
Here we see the beginnings of the problem with eliminating the words "inside strategy" from our vocabulary to describe certain people within TEC. The authors equate "inside strategy" with "strategies and tactics designed to use meetings of the House of Bishops and the General Convention to stop TEC’s progressive march toward liturgical and even doctrinal Unitarianism." But we all know that the HOB and the General Convention, as well as the Executive Committee and many dioceses have been on an inevitable progressive march toward liturgical and doctrinal Unitarianism. This highlights the immense gaps in strategy between the two conservative groups in TEC at General Convention 2006. Well, the Anglican Communion Institute continues to demonstrate -- along with those representing the "replacement province" strategy as well -- why so many traditional laypeople and clergy remaining in TEC are on their own. If you're in TEC, and you're traditional, and you wish to remain in TEC for the forseeable future and you wish to engage in strategic action and resistance to the agenda of the national entities of The Episcopal Church, gather around you some traditional laypeople and clergy and take your stand. But the Anglican Communion Network -- gone/evaporated. The American Anglican Council -- off doing the replacement province thing. The Common Cause Partnership/ACNA -- it needs to be growing and figuring itself out. The Communion Partners association -- some nice clergy and bishops who want to fellowship together. The Anglican Communion Institute -- also nice and thoughtful clergy of "certain commitments" and "certain convictions" that "are reflected in patient and enduring witness rather than in strategies and tactics designed to bring about desired future states." None of those organizations are helpful to those traditional Episcopalians who wish to engage in strategic, thoughtful action within TEC -- not that there's anything wrong with any of those organizations either!
And let me emphasize that last point. It's really not the purpose of certain organizations -- either inside or outside TEC -- to support or work with people like me. I understand that. So when I point out where I agree or disagree with various organizations, let me make clear that that does not make those organizations "bad things" or even "organizations that should change to support Episcopalians like me."
Here's a link to the ACI's latest piece. I'm just going to go through it and mention a few points of agreement and disagreement and leave it at that. Those of us in TEC who are interested in "strategies and tactics designed to bring about desired future states," however, really need to understand, with crystal clarity, that there is no organization at all that represents us. We need to recognize the cold, clear reality that confronts us -- and in the knowledge of that reality, gather around us the allies that we have and work within our contexts as best we are able to.
When referring to the response given to the tumult within The Episcopal Church (TEC) by those with more traditional theological and moral commitments, it is at present a matter of common parlance to speak of an “inside” and an “outside” strategy. At first glance, reference to an “inside strategy” and an “outside strategy” suggests two groups that have similar goals but employ different tactics to reach those goals. However, it is becoming increasingly clear that this way of describing the two groups serves to distort rather than clarify the differences between them. It is of signal importance that these differences be clarified and openly debated. They in fact reveal fault lines in understanding the nature of the Christian witness itself that threaten to divide the entire Anglican Communion.
I generally agree that "inside strategy" and "outside strategy" are no longer useful to describe those groups titled the Communion Partners/ACI and those groups titled Common Cause/ACNA. None of the groups are engaged in "inside strategy" or "outside strategy" at all, with regards to TEC.
In a recent address, Bishop Duncan said of the proposed new province, “We need a unified body both to heal the divisions among ourselves and to give the broader Anglican Communion a unified and coherent partner with which to be in relationship.” When taken in conjunction with other remarks he has made, it is clear that the goal of the “outside strategy” with which Bishop Duncan is associated is in fact not a new province but a replacement province–one that will take TEC’s place within the Anglican Communion. Given the nature of this goal it seems initially plausible to seek a province that lies “outside” TEC’s jurisdiction.
I agree with this paragraph. People have been talking about a replacement province for years now. Most of the people who I know who are inside TEC do not wish to be a part of the replacement province that the ACNA/CCP has envisioned. So I can only think that when Bishop Duncan refers to healing "the divisions among ourselves" he means the divisions among portions of the ACNA, as clearly the ACNA is not working to "heal the divisions among ourselves" which are among those traditional Episcopalians in TEC.
Several things are said about the goal of those who hold to what is called by contrast the “inside strategy.” One is that their goal is the “reform” of TEC from within. Reform obviously requires an “inside strategy.” In response to assertions by those who supposedly hold to an “inside strategy” that their goal is not “reform” it is then said that these insiders “lack the will to resist” and that their “plan seems to be to ‘die in place’.” In short the “inside strategy” is no strategy at all according to its “outside” critics. Upon examination it appears to them as merely a passive stance in the face of an inevitable collapse within TEC of effective resistance to the revisionist goals of the progressive forces that for years have held the levers of power.
I agree that "reform of TEC" was never a plan of those who held -- and still hold -- to "the inside strategy". Clearly if TEC is represented as the national leaders of the Executive Council, the HOB, the HOD, and the offices of 815 there is zero hope of reforming those bodies. I've gone into the reasons for that extensively in other posts and won't belabor them now.
There are still some very naive and ignorant [I don't mean globally ignorant, I just mean ignorant of the processes and makeup of the national church bodies] conservatives in TEC who don't grasp the fact that the HOB and the HOD are not representational of the majority in TEC -- nor are they meant to be. They are set up to function like the Senate rather than the House, and since the majority of Dioceses are ruled by raving revisionists [note that I do not say the majority of Episcopalians] no matter how teensy those Dioceses are and will remain, the prospect of reform of those national bodies is miniscule to none, since the majority of teensy dioceses will always outvote the minority at the national level. Remember, all dioceses get the same number of votes at the national level, no matter the number of parishioners.
The attempt to reform such bodies at the national level is rather like an attempt by the French Resistance to "reform" the faux Vichy government of France. The Vichy government was openly and happily in thrall to the German Reich. It certainly wasn't going to be "reformed" -- merely resisted by French patriots.
Those of us who hold to "the inside strategy" are also -- not coincidentally -- not in agreement with either the ACI or the ACNA.
But it is certainly granted that "reform of the national church" is not a valid goal of an inside strategy, and the extent to which many Episcopalians -- not having examined the processes and institutions of TEC -- do not or did not understand that and are thus shocked and appalled when people talk about not seeking reform of 815 is only revealing of their lack of knowledge and probably even involvement in "inside strategy" anyway.
As we have viewed this discussion over time, it has become increasingly clear that the distinction between inside and outside strategies is unhelpful. It in fact has become both incoherent and obfuscating. To be sure, those who favor what we will from now on call a “replacement province” have strategic goals and tactical plans. It does not seem to us, however, that “strategy” and “tactics” best illumine what those whose resistance remains within TEC are about.
I agree that using the term "outside strategy" to apply to those who are working towards their new Anglican entity is unhelpful. They simply don't have the same goals as those traditionalists who have remained within TEC. However, the phrase "inside strategy" certainly remains useful, as we shall see later on in this response.
At one time this way of speaking was indeed quite accurate. There were strategies and tactics designed to use meetings of the House of Bishops and the General Convention to stop TEC’s progressive march toward liturgical and even doctrinal Unitarianism. It is now the case that the people we know do not see any near possibility of reform and they no longer pursue such purposes. They have recognized the futility for near term of politically realistic change. However, they do hold certain convictions, and they do have certain commitments that give shape to their present actions—actions that hardly qualify as passive. These convictions and commitments are reflected in patient and enduring witness rather than in strategies and tactics designed to bring about desired future states. They grow from trust that God will use faithful witness in his own time and in his own way to bring about his purposes—purposes that do not stem from our imaginings or our desires but from God’s justice and God’s mercy.
Here we see the beginnings of the problem with eliminating the words "inside strategy" from our vocabulary to describe certain people within TEC. The authors equate "inside strategy" with "strategies and tactics designed to use meetings of the House of Bishops and the General Convention to stop TEC’s progressive march toward liturgical and even doctrinal Unitarianism." But we all know that the HOB and the General Convention, as well as the Executive Committee and many dioceses have been on an inevitable progressive march toward liturgical and doctrinal Unitarianism. This highlights the immense gaps in strategy between the two conservative groups in TEC at General Convention 2006. One group -- made up of conservatives who still believed that they could "stop TEC's progressive march" kept simply trying to weaken flamingly revisionist resolutions at GC. The did this, often, with the idea that if they could "just hang on for another five to ten years, things might turn around." These were the same sorts of people who were amazed that people didn't want to vote for Bishop Parsley as Presiding Bishop of TEC. After all, wasn't Bishop Parsley "more conservative" than most of the other candidates? The other group -- of which I was a part -- was thrilled at the clarity of those same flamingly revisionist resolutions and had no intentions of helping the institutionalists like Peter Lee water down or obscure the revisionism of those resolutions. We further recognized that Bishop Parsley would be simply another, smart Bishop Griswold -- a man who was most calculated and thoughtful about working towards revisionist actions, while couching his actions in vague, obscure language, calculated to deceive and confuse. Bishop Parsley, therefore, as Presiding Bishop would not have "stopped TEC's progressive march" but would rather have served as useful cover for TEC's progressive march at the national level.
I estimate that the latter group was the more successful at GC 2006 and the former was quite frustrated.
It is refreshing to hear the ACI state that their "convictions and commitments are reflected in patient and enduring witness rather than in strategies and tactics designed to bring about desired future states." It is clear that that is no "inside strategy."
But what are some examples of "inside strategy"?
If the "inside strategy" is not working towards reform of TEC as a whole, what "desired future states" might an inside strategist work towards through the use of strategies and tactics?
I've named some before, but let me do so again, using revisionist contexts, and only a few for each context, since there are so many available to choose from:
Revisionist Parish, Revisionist Diocese: The inside strategy for an Episcopalian in this state would be to clearly and loudly point out his own stances and beliefs, so as to make certain that the church recognizes that their beliefs and doctrines are not 100% accepted, even in the worst of dioceses or parishes. Working to become an alternative media source for secular media is an excellent goal here, as well.
The inside strategy for an Episcopalian in this state is to connect with other traditional Episcopalians, and form groups and associations, so that together they can even more clearly and loudly point out that their own stances and beliefs are in contradiction to the stances and beliefs of the diocese and parishes.
The inside strategy for an Episcopalian in this state is to eliminate as much funding as possible from both parish and diocese and funding other more worthy enterprises.
The inside strategy for an Episcopalian in this state is to set up other forms and vehicles of communication that circumvent parish newsletters and diocesan communication vehicles.
The inside strategy for an Episcopalian in this state is to resist as much as possible the agenda of the diocese.
The inside strategy for an Episcopalian in this state is finding the more conservative parishes in the diocese and networking with them, even if you cannot join.
. . . Among many other possibilities.
Moderate Parish, Revisionist Diocese A part of the inside strategy for an Episcopalian in this state is to reform and renew one's moderate parish, through educating parishioners about issues, and forming internal reform groups.
[See above]
Conservative Parish, Revisionist Diocese A part of the inside strategy for an Episcopalian in this state is to strengthen the bulwarks of vestry, bylaws, membership and other means of protecting a parish within a hostile diocese.
To make certain that the vestry is stocked with informed, strategically minded vestry members.
To learn all you can about rector search processes so that you can work to assure succession in that parish.
[See above]
In short, the possibilities for "strategies and tactics designed to bring about desired future states" are endless, no matter your context. The fact that some organizations made up of wonderful traditional scholars and rectors and bishops do not wish to pursue "strategies and tactics designed to bring about desired future states" does not mean that no inside strategy exists or no inside strategists exist either.
Let me offer another brief example of using "strategies and tactics designed to bring about desired future states" that is helpful in the national context. One "desired future state" for the General Convention of The Episcopal Church is that it not be allowed to obscure and obfuscate its current heretical track. That's a valid "desired future state" for the General Convention -- crystal clear clarity communicated in the loudest possible tones concerning its theology and practices. Any "strategy and tactic" that works to help the General Convention offer that crystal clear clarity is an "inside strategy."
Another brief example of a "desired future state" would be further weakness and loss of image for the national agenda of The Episcopal Church. It is a very good thing that the agenda and leadership at the national level of The Episcopal Church is weakening in the secular public eye. Any "strategy and tactic" that works to increase that weakness and loss of image is an "inside strategy."
Just what are these convictions and commitments? Here we must summarize a host of conversations to which we have been party over the past several years. The convictions revealed are these.
The weakness and disarray of TEC (and indeed of the churches of the West) are best understood as the result of divine displeasure at pervasive misconstruals of Christian belief and practice coupled with a common life that blows neither “hot nor cold.”
Here, the ACI lists its commitments and convictions, most of which I agree with.
I agree that we Anglicans are experiencing "divine displeasure".
It is a form of delusion and disobedience to place oneself and ones friends outside the judgment God intends for the health of his church. Rather, fidelity calls for acceptance of the judgment as both just and merciful. It calls also for faithful Christians to live through that judgment to the end. This way is none other than the way Christ himself walked, believing not in a future state of his devising and constructing but in God’s power, through his death, to give life to the dry bones of his people.
I would prefer the words "to attempt to place oneself and ones friends outside the judgment God intends." But then . . . I don't believe that the new Anglican entity called the ACNA is attempting that either. I don't believe that a Christian will be able to succeed in placing oneself outside of God's judgment on the church. And since the ACI has stated above that "the churches of the West" are experiencing "divine displeasure," I'm unsure of to what they are referring. The ACNA is a part of "the churches of the West." The ACNA will therefore experience "divine displeasure." The ACNA will not be able to "place oneself and ones friends outside the judgment God intends." Nor do I believe that they are trying to do so.
But none of that has to do with people experiencing their conscience's call out of a corrupt and heretical organization and into an organization they believe is orthodox. Leaving one organization for another does not necessarily have anything at all to do with placing "oneself and ones friends outside the judgment God intends."
The pattern of Christ’s life suggests the necessity of a clear differentiation between a way faithful to his life and teaching and one that has simply assumed the form of the culture with which the leadership of TEC has identified.
I wholeheartedly agree.
The obedient form of differentiation suggested by the pattern of Christ is not separation but faithful persistence along a different path within the fellowship of the church that has nurtured one as a Christian but has, nonetheless, gone astray.
I agree that in order to differentiate one does not need to separate. But one may separate oneself from an organization for other good and excellent reasons.
The commitments required by differentiation within TEC are these.
Commitment to the Windsor injunctions to eschew (a) the blessing of sexual unions between persons of the same gender; (b) the ordination to holy orders of people involved in such relations; and (c) the unlicensed crossing of diocesan or provincial boundaries to provide Episcopal oversight. Commitment to an Anglican Covenant of mutual subjection in the Body of Christ that contains clear consequences for Provinces that do not choose to ratify the Covenant or do not abide by its terms once they have committed to them. Commitment to the historically established Office of the Archbishop of Canterbury as the effective symbol of the unity of a worldwide Communion of Churches. Commitment to the developed Instruments of Communion as the effective means of ordering the common life of the Communion. Commitment to the evangelization and teaching of those who do not follow Christ as Lord and Savior, and service to those in need and distress. Commitment to effective Christian formation of a new generation of well equipped lay and clerical leadership through new forms of theological education within the parishes and dioceses of TEC. Commitment to partnership (κοινωνία) in these goals with the various provinces of the Anglican Communion.
I disagree. These are the ACI's beliefs about what is required to "differentiate" -- but I do not accept them as true. One may be inside TEC and successfully "differentiate" from TEC without committing, for example, "to the developed Instruments of Communion as the effective means of ordering the common life of the Communion."
Take me, for instance. I think I'm pretty thoroughly differentiated -- and I believe the developed Instruments of Communion are not "the effective means of ordering the common life of the Communion." No, these statements are merely what the ACI wishes people would believe, while naming those beliefs "differentiation."
Further, the final three commitments are what any Christian within the Anglican Communion ought to be doing -- I don't see them as particularly "differentiating" from TEC.
Finally, one may enact all of the above commitments and still not succeed at all in differentiating from "the culture with which the leadership of TEC has identified." No, these are merely commitments of the ACI -- understandable commitments given that organization's goals -- that have little to do with "differentiation from TEC."
These convictions and commitments are a form of specifically Christian witness rather than a strategy designed to bring about a desired future state. The future state of TEC and the Anglican Communion rests in God’s hands. Our work is not to take this kingdom by force of design and tactic, but to make a faithful witness, practice faithful endurance, and wait upon the Lord to see what he will make of what we do and say.
I wholeheartedly agree that the commitments and convictions of the ACI are not "a strategy designed to bring about a desired future state" and are thus not an "inside strategy."
The present conflict within TEC has brought these convictions and commitments into the full light of day and set them off from the strategies and tactics of separation. It is in no way helpful to cover over the differences, but it is also very unhelpful to misrepresent or misunderstand them. These differences are real and they stem from very different understandings of the nature and calling of the church and of the present circumstances of its life. These are differences that call for careful thought and thorough debate rather than ill will and precipitous action.
I agree that the convictions and commitments of the ACI are certainly not the strategies and tactics of separation. I agree that the differences are real. Of course, the differences of those Episcopalians who are committed to the inside strategy also are certainly not "the convictions and commitments of the ACI" either. I agree that none of us should hold ill will against the various conservative groupings within TEC or without TEC.
It seems that those who have formed the Anglican Church in North America have decisively entered the path toward a replacement province. The time for debate about this choice has now past. Time and time alone will tell what future lies in store for this venture. We shall not attempt to predict an outcome. If our theology is right, such an attempt would be at a minimum presumptuous.
I agree.
What we can do, however, is point out the ways in which the notion of an inside and outside strategy distorts the nature of a serious difference in the understanding of our Christian vocation that demands careful discernment. We can also do what we can to present the nature of this difference to the Communion with a prayer that these two ways can be assessed in a manner that leads to the peace of the church.
I'm not certain here why the ACI continues on about the "inside strategy" and the "outside strategy." I think we can all agree that the ACI does not represent the "inside strategy."
Let me just point out the conservative groups that we can all see for ourselves.
There is the ACNA -- they've left TEC and have launched their own alternate Anglican entity.
There is the ACI and Communion Partners -- they vigorously proclaim that they are not interested in an "inside strategy" but rather are interested in holding to their convictions and commitments "in patient and enduring witness" without engaging "in strategies and tactics designed to bring about desired future states."
And then, there are traditional Episcopalians who are most certainly interested in engaging "in strategies and tactics designed to bring about desired future states" and who do not share all of the commitments and convictions of the ACI. I and many others communicate with these traditional Episcopalians seven days a week in dioceses from Atlanta to California to Georgia to Minnesota.
Some of them are actually clergy who are within the Communion Partners too, and laity and clergy who have engaged with the ACI.
So what we have are groups of "inside strategy" traditional Episcopalians who are separate from the convictions and commitments of the ACI and the formally expressed opinions of the Communion Partners -- but who are interacting with those groups.
Let's be clear. There are Episcopalians who are most interested in the "inside strategy." The fact that the ACI and I assume the Communion Partners group eschews the "inside strategy" does not mean that those Episcopalians do not exist.
On the other hand, it is good to see the ACI and the Communion Partners continue to clarify their goals publicly. Their expressed goals do not make them "bad organizations." Their goals merely express who they are and what they intend to do -- and it's important for clergy who are making decisions about participation in either organization to be aware of what those organizations mean to do. There are some good people in both organizations and, from the perspective of this layperson, the Communion Partners is currently the only place that an inside strategy clergyperson can gain some fellowship.
In the same way, we all know what the new Anglican entity -- the ACNA -- is clearly seeking. Those who leave for the ACNA have obviously abandoned any "inside strategy" as well.
At this point, those Episcopalians interested in the inside strategy need to connect with one another, and seek counsel where they can -- but with crystal clarity that there is no organizational or institutional or national help for them. We are, as I have said for the past almost two years, on our own. Acknowledging that fact is the first step towards clarity and healing and seeking help where we can find it, with those who share our goals -- and of course, fellowshiping with joy with all orthodox Anglican brothers and sisters, whether in the ACI, the Communion Partners, or the ACNA.
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams. A brief summary of the article:
Inside strategy - trying to make sure that your tablecloth is properly starched in the dining room of the Titanic.
Man, you’re good!
Concur!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.