Category: General

My Book on Theology and Psychology of Childhood Now Available Thru YTC Press

My book on the theology and psychology of childhood has just been published by YTC press in England.

Reverence for the Heart of the Child

and here in the us

US source

Below is the back cover blurb and a longer description of the work.

Reverence for the Heart of the Child

By

The Rev. Leander S. Harding, Ph.D.

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:”Calibri”,”sans-serif”;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}

Are children little angels or little devils, or are they like their parents a little of each? Must they go through a definite moment of conversion or can they grow up always knowing themselves to be Christian? How do theological ideas about human nature, sin and salvation affect how parents see and treat children? Starting with Horace Bushnell’s classic and controversial 19th century study, Christian Nurture, Leander Harding brings the discussion up to date with the help of insights from contemporary psychoanalytic thought and Family Systems Theory. Included are practical suggestions for parents and parishes.

In the middle of the nineteenth century Christianity in New England was polarized between Unitarians and Calvinists. At the heart of the controversy was an argument over the nature of childhood. Unitarians objected vigorously to the doctrine of Original Sin and saw children as innocents who needed only to have their inherent goodness brought out. Calvinists under the influence of a very severe reading of the doctrine of utter depravity saw the pre-converted child as inherently wicked and thought that the only thing they could do for their children prior to a revival type experience of conversion was to convince them of their wickedness and their need for a new heart. In the midst of this controversy a Congregationalist minister, Horace Bushnell published in 1849, Christian Nurture. This book based on sermons given in his parish church in Hartford, Connecticut became quickly a classic in the field of Christian Education and the theology of childhood.

Bushnell criticized both Unitarians for their “ostrich nurture” referring to the myth of the ostrich sticking its head in the sand and hoping for the best. Bushnell criticized the Calvinists for an approach to child-rearing which damaged both “the personality and piety of your children.” He proposed that children should grow up never knowing themselves to have been otherwise than a Christian as a result of the Christian nurture of their parents and local church. Bushnell saw children neither as little angels or as little demons but as human beings made good in the image of God, fallen and struggling with good and evil in the same way as their parents and with the same capacity to know and respond to the love of God as their parents.

Reverence for the Heart of the Child, by Leander S. Harding is a fundamental rereading of Bushnell’s classic book. It is his thesis that though this book is often quoted it has been the victim of significant misreading. Harding proposes a fresh reading of this classic in the theology of childhood through a careful analysis of the theology of the day and through bringing Bushnell’s original argument into dialogue with contemporary psychology including Family Systems Theory. What emerges is a reading of Bushnell that is not easily categorized as liberal or conservative and which regains the provocative and prophetic voice of the original. Reverence for the Heart of the Child takes the lessons learned from Bushnell and uses them to critique contemporary Christian approaches to childrearing and Christian Education and ends with practical suggestions for parents and pastors.

The Rev. Leander S. Harding, Ph.D. is an Episcopal priest and Associate Professor of Pastoral Theology at Trinity School for Ministry in Ambridge, Pennsylvania. He has twenty five years of parish experience and is a trainer in the Godly Play movement. Many of his writings can be found at his blog, leanderharding.com/blog.

Response to the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Second Lambeth Presidential Address

Response to the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Second Lambeth Presidential Address

By

The Rev. Leander S. Harding, Ph.D.

Rowan Williams has just made a very courageous second presidential address to the Lambeth conference. He has tried to put in his own words what traditionalists hope to be heard saying and what those standing for the innovations hope to be heard saying. This sort of thing is very basic pastoral work and many pastors will immediately recognize a larger version of their own role of being a mediator and peace maker in family and parish life. His paraphrasing of the traditionalist and revisionist positions is very articulate. He tries to put both at their best and challenges both sides to an act of imagination and charity that could allow the communion to go forward. He defines his own position in favor of a covenant with strengthened instruments of communion. There is much to admire in this statement and especially so as it comes from a man under immense pressure. I hope that it will have a major impact and influence on the final outcome of the conference.

I have my disappointments with the statement as well. One cannot do everything in a short statement but the terms of debate about homosexuality as presented in popular culture are taken on without comment or critique. The statement assumes that there is a debate between traditionalists and revisionists about how to respond to “gay” and “lesbian” Christians. Rowan Williams is accepting that homosexuality is a descriptor of human identity in the same way as gender or race is. This is a disputed question both scientifically and theologically, and the constant assumption that the theological dispute is a dispute about how to deal appropriately with the same facts confuses things. There is also a dispute about what the facts are.

There is another subtle subtext to this message. The Archbishop has implicitly described the dispute as a North vs South dispute. The imaginary conversation sounds like a conversation between TEC and the African churches. There is an implication that Africans and others in the global South are in a pre-critical cultural context and that those in the global North are dealing with the complexity of a post-critical situation with a more enlightened and nuanced understanding of homosexuality. This is inaccurate and an oversimplification. Among other things it misses the massive disagreement and division in North America and fails to register the sophistication of the scientific and theological objections to the homosexual agenda in the church that cuts across the global North-South divide. The Archbishop’s statement sadly implies that all who resist the homosexual agenda in the church have not engaged seriously the cultural and scientific issues.

A final disappointment is the Archbishop’s failure to grasp the degree to which in North America and among North Americans the dispute is far deeper than over the proper response to homosexuality. The uniqueness and divinity of Christ are very much at play in our setting. The Archbishop is right that it is easy to judge too sweepingly and too harshly but his statement does not really register the worry that many traditionalists have in North America about fidelity to basic Christian doctrine on the part of the leaders of their churches. It is not the case that traditionalists are making judgments on the basis of the homosexual question alone. Statements by key leaders in the Episcopal Church contradict the most basic teachings of the faith including the divinity and resurrection of Jesus Christ. What is even more worrying is the use of the traditional language of faith with a very different intention and meaning by many of our leaders. I think traditionalists in North America would like this concern to be truly heard by the Archbishop and the Lambeth meeting and not implicitly dismissed as prejudiced or over-reaction.

Bishop John Chane and Imperial Pluralism

Bishop John Chane and Imperial Pluralism

By

The Rev. Leander S. Harding, Ph.D.

“I think it’s really very dangerous when someone stands up and says: ‘I have the way and I have the truth and I know how to interpret holy scripture and you are following what is the right way,'” he said “It’s really very, very dangerous and I think it’s demonic.” Bishop of Washington, John Chane as quoted in the English newspaper The Guardian.

This is from an interview in which the bishop of Washington was commenting on the crisis in the Anglican Communion and the charge by Anglican traditionalists that many bishops in The Episcopal Church have simply departed from the Apostolic faith.

John Chane charges the traditionalists with the crime of certainty. This is a commonplace. It is a corollary of the reigning intellectual culture among the intellectual elites of the West. It is a consequence of the dogmas of post-modernism. It is based on the conviction that there is very little that can be known with certainty, perhaps just a very few “facts” of science, perhaps not even them. The dogma at work here is the ironic post-modern dogma of the certainty of uncertainty. Consequently according to this post-modern dogma, to claim certainty in the area of beliefs and values is immoral and especially so given the huge variety of religious and philosophical options. The high dudgeon of the well educated university grad schooled in the dogmas of post-modernism is reserved for anyone who has the audacity to claim certainty in the area of religion, morals and beliefs. This is seen by people such as John Chane as an example of immorality and trying to force your beliefs on others. People who are morally and religiously certain create alarm. They are in Bishop Chane’s words, dangerous.

This protest against certainty claims the moral high ground and sounds on the surface as though it is based on a generous tolerance. This supposed moral protest in the name of tolerance needs to be unmasked as exactly the opposite, the dismissive and marginalizing rhetoric of the powerful who seek to protect their own agenda from critique on the grounds of any transcendent authority. It is precisely an attempt to force your beliefs on others before any argument is engaged by virtue of the way in which the rules of discussion are established. It is saying, in effect, ” before we talk you must agree that your beliefs and values are the sort of thing that I say they are and I say they can never be more than one opinion among others. If we are to talk, you must give up all your truth claims before you come to the table. With regard to the rules of the table, I will be the final referee.”

Lesslie Newbigin has brought forward a devastating critique of this pretended stance of tolerance. Newbigin identifies one of the foundational myths of contemporary pluralism in the parable of the blind men and the elephant. A group of blind men so the story goes are exploring an elephant by touch. One feels the tail and says the elephant is like a rope and one feels the leg and says the elephant is like a tree and one feels the ear and says the elephant is like a large leaf. Each has a piece of the truth. No one of them has it all. To apply the parable to our current controversy, many in The Episcopal Church see the protest of traditionalist Anglicans as an attempt by one of the blind men to make his perspective the one authoritative perspective and thus a power play and an immoral case of over-reaching. Lesslie Newbigin points out that there is a problem with this parable. The parable is told from the point of view of the King and his courtiers who take in the whole scene. The parable is told from the point of view of a supposedly neutral observer who is able to see the partial and limited nature of all other perspectives from the vantage point of the one perspective which is not subject to any critique. The parable is told from the imperial point of view. The teller of the parable adopts the pose of tolerance but this is surface camouflage behind which the King asserts the right to relativize and marginalize all other claims to truth but his own. Of this Newbigin says, “In a pluralist society such as ours. . .any claim to announce the truth about God and his purpose for the world, is liable to be dismissed as ignorant, arrogant, dogmatic. We have no reason to be frightened of this accusation. It itself rests on assumptions which are open to radical criticisms, but which are not criticized because they are part of the reigning plausibility structure.” (Gospel in a Pluralist Society, page 10.)

Bishop Chane’s protest sounds high minded and tolerant but it is in reality the rhetoric of the despot who is beyond rebuke. I do not ascribe a calculating mentality to the bishop in this but the words quoted in the Guardian are nonetheless words which express an imperial pluralism. Having once dismissed his opponents, Bishop Chane will immediately turn and announce his agenda for revision of the inherited moral teaching of the church as a “Gospel imperative.”

Now the question is this: to whom shall we turn when issues are disputed; to the whole Christian dogmatic and moral tradition of the last 2000 years or to the dogmas of skepticism and nihilism of the current Western intellectual elites?


What I Wish Rowan Williams Had Said About GAFCON

What I Wish Rowan Williams Had Said About GAFCON

“I welcome the Jerusalem declaration of GAFCON. The vast majority of Anglicans will recognize the center and boundaries of their faith expressed in the GAFCON document including the robust affirmation of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as the one and only son of God and the way, the truth and the life. The statement of orthodox Anglican faith produced by GAFCON is commendable and I recommend it to the design team for an Anglican Covenant as a most serious and weighty contribution to their process. I welcome the statement that GAFCON sees itself as a movement for reform and renewal within the Anglican Communion, and I look forward to the participation of GAFCON members at Lambeth and in other councils of the communion. I have questions about how the proposed GAFCON structures will relate to the councils of the communion and the existing instruments of unity. I invite the leaders of GAFCON to work with me and other leaders of the communion to make our Anglican Communion structures as responsive and responsible as possible. I hope that no new structural initiatives will be taken until Lambeth has had a chance to respond in more detail to the GAFCON proposals. It is my great hope that issues of this sort can be addressed personally and directly among the bishops of the communion at the upcoming Lambeth meeting.”


 

Thoughts on the Jerusalem Statement of GAFCON

Thoughts on the Jerusalem Statement of GAFCON

A Change in Tempo?

 

I have had a first look at the Jerusalem communiqué of GAFCON. I will be rereading it in days ahead but here are some initial reactions. GAFCON establishes itself as a confessing movement within the church based on an ecumenical definition of Christian orthodoxy and the historic Anglican formularies. GAFCON does not formally break with the Archbishop of Canterbury and describes itself as a movement for reformation and renewal. The statement asserts that Anglicanism is to be defined doctrinally. Canterbury is accorded respect but declared not to have the power to say who and who is not Anglican. This is an explicit rejection of the notion that to be an Anglican church all that is required is an invitation to the Lambeth conference. Rather Anglicanism is to be defined in terms of the common confession of creedal orthodoxy and adherence to the doctrinal heritage of the classical Anglican formularies. The language describing the significance of the 1662 BCP, the ordinal and the 39 articles is confessional and authoritative but is carefully worded to allow for some very modest interpretation and local adaptation of worship.

Those dioceses in North and South America that in word or deed have ceased to confess the uniqueness of Christ or promoted extra-biblical sexual morality are declared apostate and called to repentance. The existing instruments of communion are identified as an inadequate “colonial structure” and condemned for not promoting discipline within the communion. The primates who organized GAFCON are asked to create a council of primates and to enlarge this council with other confessing members and to recognize confessing Anglican jurisdictions whether they are in communion with Canterbury or not. The establishment of a new province for confessing Anglicans in North America based on the common cause partnership and to be recognized by the GAFCON movement is encouraged.

I do not read this as the break up of the Anglican Communion. I expect that many of the attendees at GAFCON will be attending Lambeth but I do see this conference and its statement as an important breakthrough in the impasse of the communion crisis. In the game of chess I believe there is a term called tempo. It has to do with which player is the one to which the other must respond. One player has the upper hand and then there is an exchange and the player who was setting the tempo is now the one who must respond. Until this meeting in Jerusalem the tempo was in the hands of the North American churches. They acted and the rest of the communion was in the position of responding to their actions. The existing instruments of communion including the Archbishop of Canterbury have in part by inaction and in part by intention, continually moved the tempo back to TEC and The Anglican Church of Canada. The emergence of GAFCON as a confessing group within the Anglican Communion which is willing to take bold action, though at this point action short of a formal break with Canterbury, changes the tempo. It is now the rest of the communion including its existing instruments of communion which must respond. It is the consensus of the emerging confessing majority in the communion which is now setting the agenda. If the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Lambeth conference do not respond to this initiative in a meaningful way they are likely to become irrelevant to the future of global Anglicanism. Irrelevancy for Canterbury, Lambeth and the Anglican Consultative Council seem a greater risk at the moment than the risk of a formal break or repudiation of these instruments by members of GAFCON.

A Review of The Forward Movement Catalog 2008

A Review of The Forward Movement Catalog 2008

 

The Forward Movement Catalog was in my mailbox at the seminary today. I have appreciated the ministry of Forward Movement over the years. Forward Movement is the semi-official tract publisher for the Episcopal Church. It is a remnant of a renewal movement of the early 20th century in TEC, and among other great publications which you can get from Forward Movement, you can get a pamphlet with the history of how this publishing organization came into being.

In the catalog you will find some real gems that are written in an accessible style that will be much appreciated by the parish faithful. Here are just a few of the very well-known authors from a quick look through the alphabetical listing at the end of the catalog; Bishop Fitz Allison, the scholarly retired bishop of South Carolina; Bishop John David Bena, now of CANA and the author of a study on faith; Richard Bolles, the author of the famous guide to job hunting, What Color Is Your Parachute; Frederick Buechner, perhaps one of the most popular Christian writers of the 20th century; John Booty, the Hooker scholar and former dean at St. Luke’s School of Theology; Tony Clavier, of blogdom fame; John Claypool, who was famous as a evangelical preacher before he joined The Episcopal Church; James Fenhagen, a former dean of General Seminary; Theodore Ferris, the great preacher and rector of Trinity, Boston; Peter Gomes of Harvard; Kathryn Greene-McCreight, priest, Barth scholar and author of an award winning book on theology and mental illness; C.S. Lewis; Henri Nouwen; John Polkinghorne, the world famous physicist turned priest and writer on science and religion; Charles Price, a well known seminary professor of a previous era; Carroll Simcox, another very familiar Episcopal writer of another era; Barbara Brown Taylor; the scripture scholar Phyllis Tickle; Desmond Tutu; John Westerhoff, Rowan Williams, J. Robert Wright.

The above list is just a sample and entirely arbitrary. It consists of people whom I recognize for one reason or another. There are many other authors and the list is on the whole a balanced list. There are recognizable conservatives and recognizable liberals and fine and thought-provoking authors who defy easy pigeonholing. When I was in the parish I found much helpful material here. There are very good pamphlets on preparing for marriage and baptism, on how to use the prayer book and the history of Anglicanism, on the meaning of sacraments, on how to deal with alcoholism and addiction and depression, on prayers for the aged and the young and all sorts of very practical things oriented toward the normal life of the parish church.

The mainstay of Forward Movement is Forward Movement Day by Day. This is a little booklet that is produced on an ongoing basis and keyed to the daily office readings. The author of the meditations is usually anonymous. For years I used this in the parish and recommended it to my parishioners. I had to give up some years ago because the writing became so heretical. If I remember it was the issue that seemed to deny the bodily resurrection that was the last straw for me and I canceled the parish subscription. I kept using the pamphlets, carefully on a pick and choose basis but Forward Movement was still the best source of short readable material on a number of topics that you really wanted to give to people either new to the faith or to the parish.

The press is under new management and I know that the new editor Richard Schmidt wants the press to be genuinely theologically diverse and to include conservative voices. He has visited Trinity and invited members of the faculty to submit articles for consideration and left with us a list of issues on which he is soliciting submissions. It is thus disappointing to review the entries in the catalog that touch on the issues dividing the church. There is a whole page of offerings on human sexuality. The offerings seem to me to be very heavily weighted in favor of the revisionist side. I may have missed it but I don’t see much on the Windsor process or anything that might help the average Episcopalian understand in a sympathetic way the reasons behind the protest of so many provinces of the Anglican Communion to the reigning theology and ethos of The Episcopal Church.

It is very worthwhile for what are sometimes called reasserting Anglicans to go through the Forward Movement Catalog looking for the many useful things they will find there. As I did so today I recognized many tried and true booklets and saw some others that piqued my interest and some that I hope never appear in any parish anywhere. With regard to newer authors and pamphlets on contemporary controversial issues including homosexuality and the crisis in the Communion, reasserting Anglicans will find very little that they can use or recommend.

Notes on the Talk Given by Fr. Richard John Neuhaus on June 6, 2008

Notes on the Talk Given by Fr. Richard John Neuhaus on June 6, 2008,

St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary,

By The Rev. Leander S. Harding, Ph.D.

Fr. John Neuhaus is one of the most well-known Roman Catholic priests in the country. He was for many years an equally well-known inner-city Lutheran pastor and civil rights activist who marched with Martin Luther King. Some of his old friends from the 1960s find his conversion to Roman Catholicism and his neo-conservative politics hard to fathom. His most famous book is a protest against militant secularism in public life, called The Naked Public Square. Fr. Neuhaus has been very active in ecumenical affairs for many years and is one of the organizers with Charles Colson and J.I. Packer of Evangelicals and Catholics together, a group which has made some important statements on ethics and American life.

Fr. Neuhaus began with a phrase that he repeated throughout his talk that reconciliation between East and West is an eschatological hope in that it can only come by God’s grace and in God’s time and it would seem by some dramatic intervention of God, but nevertheless at the same time we maintain unity between East and West as an eschatological hope we should also pursue it with a sense of temporal urgency.

Fr. Neuhaus gave thanks for his affiliation with St. Vladimir’s over the years and said that the seminary was holy ground to him because of the wonderful ecumenical conversations in which he had participated on the seminary grounds. He made special reference to his friendship with the late Dean of the seminary Alexander Schmemann whose mennshlichkeit Fr. Neuhaus well remembers.

Fr. Neuhaus stated that the Roman Catholic Church is irrevocably committed to reunion and cited official Vatican documents and the letters and speeches of both the most recent and the current Pope in evidence. He stated that hope for unity with the churches coming out of the Reformation seems to be receding as never before and that the unity of all Christians is vastly impaired by the proliferation of Christian communities especially in the Global South. There is a special closeness between East and West and reunion here is the most feasible front for ecumenical progress. “The wounds in the body of Christ began the rift between East and West and the healing should begin there as well.” “In Ecumenism readiness is all and faithfulness is all.”

Fr. Neuhaus reported a conversation with John Paul II in the 1990’s in which he asked the Pope what one thing he wanted to achieve in his pontificate and the answer came, “Christian unity.” The Pope hoped that the healing could begin where the division had begun.

Fr. Neuhaus criticized the idea that Roman Catholic interest in ecumenism expressed any sort of imperial agenda. “The dynamic that drives R.C. ecumenism is not power but weakness. The Catholic Church cannot be what she claims to be apart from other Christians, especially the Orthodox, and Anglicans until recently, as we witness the destruction of that hope once held so fervently.”

Fr. Neuhaus said that the newer churches in the Global South don’t see unity as necessary to being the church but for Roman Catholics the Church is, “the apostolically ordered Body of Christ through time.” Catholics and Orthodox who see themselves as the one true church without a need for reunion have unwittingly adopted a Protestant view of the church because the Church must be a visible unity to be a proper witness to God’s salvation. “Divisions are scandalous and ecumenism requires conversion.”

Fr. Neuhaus said that ecumenical dialogue needs to be a dialogue of conversion. There needs to be a vertical aspect of dialogue, “an acknowledgement that we have sinned.” “This creates the space where Christ can act.”

He referred to John Paul II’s invitation to redefine Peter’s office while not denying the essence of its mission. Neuhaus regretted the relative lack of response to this invitation. He quoted the Orthodox theologian, Myendorf who also regretted that the Orthodox had found no way to respond. Neuhaus approved of the response to the question in the ARCIC(Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission) documents but questioned the degree to which ARCIC was truly reflective of Anglican identity.

Fr. Neuhaus quotes a French theologian. I am not sure I got the name correctly but I think it was Claimont, who thought that the truth that the primacy of Peter was to be exercised in a concilliar way was lost in Vatican I but regained in Vatican II. This theologian was critical of the direction in Orthodoxy toward autocephalous national churches and was also critical of what he called the reductive episcopalianism of Patriarch Bartholomew and Zizioulas. This is the communio ecclesiology that finds the fundamental identity of the church in the Eucharistic fellowship of the local bishop.

Fr. Neuhaus pointed out that full reunion will require essential dogmatic agreement and the acceptance of each other’s dogmas as de fide. He thought there was no essential dogmatic disagreement on the procession of the Spirit.

He suggested that, “It is possible in God’s plan that we are the early church. Therefore eschatological hope is reason for temporal urgency and our response to the quest for reconciliation matters eternally.”

Fr. Neuhaus ended by making reference to the changes in American culture and church life to which he has been a witness. He spoke of the ecumenical movement of the 1960’s and 70’s which was driven by the ecumenical liberal Protestantism. He found it remarkable that this institution which he likened to the American Medical Association or to the Ivy League universities had “destroyed itself” and ceased to have meaningful cultural influence. The old ecumenical movement in this country, which was perhaps superficial, has collapsed with the self-destruction of the Mainline churches. “Ecumenism must be reconstituted on a drive to go deeper and only the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics can do this.”

Notes on the Talk by Fr. John Erickson on Primacy in the Orthodox Tradition

Notes on the Talk by Fr. John Erickson on Primacy in the Orthodox Tradition

Given at St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary, June 6, 2008

By The Rev. Leander S. Harding, Ph.D.

 

Fr. Erickson is the Dean of St. Vladimir’s. He identified primacy as a both an inter- and intra-Orthodox problem. He affirmed that both Orthodox and Anglicans have an apophatic approach to primacy. Both traditions are articulate about what primacy is not and less articulate about what primacy is. For the Orthodox there is not dogma of the church. “The Orthodox sing hymns about the church but have no dogma of the church.” They have not defined the church in dogmatic terms. Fr. Erickson pointed out that even in Roman Catholic theology the dogmas on the church are of relatively recent origin. “For many centuries ecclesiology was not a forefront of dispute.” The Dean did say that the Orthodox system of autocephalous churches “has proven inadequate.” In practice he thought that the line between primacy and neo-papalism is not always clearly drawn.

Fr. Erickson pointed to the ecumenical nature of the ecclesiological discussion and of the influence of communio ecclesiology. He noted the starting point of much of this theology is with Ignatius of Antioch. The vision here is of the local church gathered about its bishop who acts both in persona Christi and in persona populi. This makes the local Eucharistic community gathered around the bishop and the local church in this sense the starting point. The canonical tradition takes for granted the unity and equality of the bishops. The emphasis in the council of bishops is on unanimity. Fr. Erickson said that the role of the council was to express the common mind of the whole church. Each church calls its bishop who may “preside in love.”

With Zizioulas there is a wide ecumenical recognition that primacy is the sharing of the partrimony of the church’s teaching tradition.

Fr. Erickson continued, Roman Catholics emphasize the hierarchal side of communion but neglect communion in holiness, baptism and martyrdom. One aspect alone of communion is not definitive, a holistic approach is needed. He asked the question, “What structures of communion and unity are necessary?” There appears to be a need for a universal ministry of unity, and from an Orthodox perspective the structures of communion need to be more than administrative and juridical but also sacramental.

The Orthodox have a high regard for Peter and the faith of Peter but are resistant to a localizing of the Petrine office in one bishop but rather see each bishop as an inheritor of the office of Peter. “Each faithful bishop derives his ministry from Peter.” Fr. Erickson pointed out that Peter ordained the Bishop of Rome but the Pope does not nominate his successor. “There is a difference between Peter and the Bishop of Rome. “The faith of Peter is the heart of Primacy.” Fr. Erickson quotes the Orthodox theologian Myendorf that, “Papacy has no indelible character and depends on the orthodoxy of the Pope’s faith.” Fr. Erickson said that, “the bishop is a concilliar being and the question of primacy is what makes one of these first?” He quotes Simeon Thesalonika to the effect that pre-eminence in episcopacy is not from an apostolic foundation but from practical considerations and the pragmatics of history. “Primacy exists for the good order of the church and primacy exists for service.”

In the Orthodox tradition an important concept with regard to primacy is the concept of solicitude or concern. “The metropolitan is charged with concern/solicitude for the whole province.” This solicitude has an extra-provincial dimension and extends to a solicitude for the whole church. This is the way in which the Early Church understood the nature of Roman primacy, as a caring after the conformity of the whole church with the patrimony of the faith. This is best understood “as leadership in love rather than juridical.” Fr. Erickson continued that Rome began to see decisions as juridical and “solicitude gives way to potentia.” This leads away from primacy within a concilliar context where the primate acts as the head of a council of bishops. In theological statements Orthodox and Roman Catholics agree on this vision of primacy but the actual practice of Roman primacy contradicts this vision.

Fr. Erickson warned against a superficial appeal to the church of the first millennium, for from the same historical record very different conclusions can be drawn.

He ended his talk with the hope that the new Pope’s ecumenical openness could lead to a new Anglican, Orthodox and Roman Catholic consensus on the issue of primacy.

Notes on The Way, the Truth And the Life: Theological Resources for a Pilgrimage to a Global Anglican Future

Notes on

The Way, The Truth And the Life: Theological Resources for a Pilgrimage To A Global Anglican Future

By The Rev. Leander S. Harding, Ph.D.

 

I have had a quick look at the GAFCON theological document. The first thing to say is that there are no ultimatums. There is no announcement of a new Anglican Communion with a headquarters in the Global South. The Archbishop of Canterbury is not anathematized. Nothing has been said which makes a solution to the present crisis which includes the Archbishop of Canterbury, Lambeth and the existing instruments of unity impossible.

The paper opens with a recounting of the history of the crisis by Peter Akinola. This chronology brings out in a painful way how the actions of the North American churches appear to purposefully contradict and defy the efforts of the churches of the communion and the instruments of unity to resolve the crisis. The unilateralism of the North American churches is put forward in a very stark way.

The bulk of the paper puts forward in broad strokes the outlines of Biblical, Creedal and missionary Anglicanism. Three stream language is used throughout, though the document is clearly dominated by Evangelical Anglican voices. Catholic minded Anglicans will find little with which to disagree but much that concerns them that is not as carefully expressed as they might wish. The section on the sacraments could use beefing up and might sound in some ears as though the sacraments were being put forward merely as sort of audio-visual aids to the Gospel. On the other hand there is an explicit embrace of ecumenical engagement and a stated desire to cooperate with Roman Catholic, Orthodox and other Evangelical and Pentecostal Christians in repairing the divisions in the church. This is I think vitally significant and I commend the drafters for including this statement. There is also a rejection of any superficial distinction between mission as proclamation and mission as practical neighbor love. The term used is from South America, mission integral.

The 1662 BCP, The Ordinal and 39 Articles of Religion are reasserted as the confessional center of Orthodox Anglicanism. The paper issues a call to return to a confession of Biblical faith centered on these formularies and criticizes the move in some provinces away from requiring clergy to subscribe to the articles. I think the critique of using Anglican to mean a style without content is long overdue. I value immensely these traditional formularies but I do think caution is needed here. When I teach theology of controversial issues I make a distinction between interests and positions. The union has a position that it wants an increase of hourly pay for the workers. The company offers profit sharing instead. It is sometimes possible to fulfill your interests with an even more adequate position. The Articles represent the reassertion of very important theological interests. I am not sure that the future of Anglicanism wants to bind itself in exact detail without any room for interpretation to the precise positions taken by the Articles on every issue. We do not I think want to establish the Articles as infallible. For instance with regard to sacramental theology the Articles stake out positions which represent the best way to protect an interest in having an understanding of sacrament that avoided Medieval superstition on the one hand and a Zwinglian emptying out of the sacrament on the other hand. But do we want to bind ourselves forever to the way in which sacramental issues were discussed at the time of the Reformation when all parties could only discuss the question in terms of Medieval philosophical Nominalism or when the notion of sacrifice was hampered on all sides by inadequate exegesis when there now exists a new consensus on the meaning of this Biblical term among both Evangelical and Catholic exegetes. I hope the realigned Anglicanism doesn’t position itself as if no ecumenical theology has taken place since the time of Cranmer. This is not to reject a central role for the classic formularies, just to advocate that acknowledgement of historical context and some freedom of interpretation be given an appropriate role.

Another interesting aspect of the document was the assertion of the reality of the supernatural realm for Anglicans in the Global South and how their encounter with principalities and powers is vivid, and how the anti-supernaturalism of Western intellectual culture creates real barriers in understanding.

I also had a quick look at Bishop Duncan’s opening statement. Again no bombshells were dropped. But there was a sober assessment of the “failure of the Elizabethan Settlement” and a call for “a post-colonial Anglicanism.” The most significant part of Bishop Duncan’s remarks was his expressed hope that given the impotence of the existing instruments of unity to exercise discipline in the church, new post-colonial instruments of unity would emerge out of the gathering of orthodox Anglicans.

I hope very much that the work of GAFCON will result in a strong presence of Orthodox bishops who will put forward concrete proposals for the renewal of the communion at Lambeth and that this gathering of Orthodox Anglicans will rally the vast majority of the communion to a renewed Anglicanism.

Notes on the Talk by Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon, June 5, 2008

Notes on the Talk by Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon, June 5, 2008

at St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary

June 5, 2008

Patrick Henry Reardon has had a remarkable personal history. He was a Trappist monk with Thomas Merton, was trained in theology in Rome, became an Anglican and was professor of New Testament at Nashotah House Seminary and of Old Testament at Trinity. More recently he has become a priest of the Antiochene Orthodox Church and the pastor of All Saints parish in Chicago. His parish was an independent Evangelical congregation for twenty years before it decided to become Orthodox. His congregation has a number of parishioners who have been associated with Moody Bible Institute and Fr. Reardon occasionally teaches at Moody.

His topic was “The Holy Scriptures and The Evangelization of America.” Fr. Reardon began with a reference to Luke 24:45. Jesus opens the minds of the disciples that they might understand the scriptures. “That is the context of ‘go make disciples.’ Those who receive the Gospel become part of the narrative.” Fr. Reardon pointed to the reiteration of the connection between Jesus and the scriptures in the Gospels. “He died for our sins according to the scriptures. He rose again according to the scriptures.” Fr. Reardon continued, “We get light on Jesus through the scriptures and light on the scriptures through Jesus. The Old Testament should be read as Christian scriptures. My family history has been engrafted into the Biblical history and there is no way to become a child of God without becoming a child of Abraham.” Fr. Reardon critiqued the disconnect between kerygma and incorporation in church practice and argued that kerygma or proclamation should lead to Baptism which then should lead to catechesis which leads to Eucharist. Catechesis is grounded in the representation of the fundamental Biblical narrative which is also the narrative of the spiritual life as we find ourselves somewhere between the Exodus and the promised land. For this reason Fr. Reardon reads Hebrews through every week at the pace of two chapters a day.

The next section of Fr. Reardon’s talk was on the Bible and History. “The Bible not only records history, it also creates history. We ourselves are part of the history created by the scripture.” A break between the Bible and its interpretation is “a break in salvation history.” This is what heresy is. Holy tradition is the handing on of the identity of the church which has been created by the scripture and it is therefore a handing on of the Holy Spirit. “Biblical history is the first part of church history.”

Fr. Reardon’s talk then turned to “The Evangelization of America.” Culture is the handing on of identity. The Bible is inextricably interwoven with the identity of the American people, “underlying the cultural expectations of the American people.” Fr. Reardon challenged the Orthodox to take Biblical preaching more seriously. He pointed out that many of the Church fathers preached daily, expositing the Bible in a systematic way and that much of the Patristic material consists of these daily sermons. In his parish fifty people come out every Wednesday night for a service of Orthodox Vespers with a chapter by chapter exposition of a book of the Bible in course. “If the Orthodox are to evangelize America they must reject the ideas that the liturgy will take care of it.” Preaching is required and this should include the tropological and moral sense of the scripture as it is applied to daily living.

In the question and answer time Fr. Reardon gave his opinion that Evangelicals are the primary mission opportunity for the Orthodox. When asked about the unchurched, he said that our times are like the times of the Apostles and that much of the Apostolic mission started with those who were already familiar with the scriptures of Israel, were monotheists and Godfearers and thus open to the Gospel and that was the mission to which the Orthodox were being called.