My reasons for selecting conservative and liberal are numerous, but let me start with my primary objections to many conservatives' use of the term "orthodox" to define themselves. My American Heritage College Dictionary (Fourth Edition, 2002) gives the following definitions for orthodox:
Obviously, these folks are not Jewish. Nor do they belong to any of the Eastern Rite churches. Their use of orthodox clearly refers to what is "accepted or traditional" and "adhering to the Christian faith as expressed in the early Christian creeds."1. Adhering to the accepted or traditional and established faith, esp. in religion. 2. Adhering to the Christian faith as expressed in the early Christian ecumenical creeds. 3. Orthodox a. Of or relating to any of the churches or rites of the Eastern Orthodox Church. b. Of or relating to Orthodox Judaism. 4. Adhering to what is commonly accepted, customary, or traditional.
Let me dispense with the second definition first. While there are people who believe the creeds ought to be thrown out, for the vast majority of liberals in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion the creeds form the core of our beliefs. We may argue about language, cultural context, and even that the concept of the Trinity is not biblically based; but then the Church Fathers argued over these same things. In fact, Christians have been arguing about the creeds and their meaning for centuries. Having different ideas about the content and meaning of the creeds does not make anyone more or less orthodox. It can, however make one more or less Orthodox, since disagreements over the creeds were one of the issues that played a part in the separation of the Eastern and Western Churches.
In terms of "accepted or traditional" Anglicanism, there have always been conservatives and liberals in the church. For the most part, Anglicans have lived with these differences without coming to blows. Occasionally, things escalated to the point of violence--the English Civil War comes to mind. Furthermore, what is "accepted or traditional" is constantly in a state of flux. Think of the Anglo-Catholic reforms, the Book of Common Prayer (even the 1662 "standard" has changed over the years), and which translation of the Bible is used and what passages are read in our services. In fact "traditional" Anglicanism has always meant living with change and the tension that comes with it.
I also want to take a quick look at "reasserter" and "reappraiser." My dictionary shows no definition for reasserter, but it does say this about assert:
1. To state or express positively; affirm. 2. To defend or maintain. n. asserter.Likewise, there is no definition for reappraiser, but to reappraise means:
To make a fresh appraisal or evaluation of.Quite frankly, and as has been pointed out by others in the time since Kendall made these commonly used terms, both liberals and conservatives can be reasserters or reappraisers at different times.
People may identify themselves in any way they wish. However, that does not mean they are necessarily correct, nor are we obligated to use their term of choice when speaking or writing about them. This is especially true when dealing with those conservatives who are currently claiming to be the sole orthodox Anglicans and/or identifying themselves as reasserters.
Many conservatives are unhappy with the changes in the Episcopal Church and, once they took their unhappiness to conservative bishops in other provinces, the Anglican Communion. As if the church has been unchanged from its birth at Pentecost. People have been leaving churches over changes and disagreements for centuries--the split between the Eastern and Western churches, the Reformation, the English Separatists... In this recent tempest in the Anglican teapot, many conservatives have left--some to the Roman Catholic Church, some to other more theologically conservative denominations, but many to other Anglican jurisdictions. It is this last movement that is relatively new, and they are not simply going as individuals, but as whole congregations, associations, and even dioceses.
At first these conservatives thought this would be a temporary situation, until the Anglican Communion either brought the Episcopal Church into line or replaced it with a more conservative province. They could remain Anglicans without having to deal with what they see as the apostate Episcopal Church. Over time, however, it has become clear to them that the Anglican Communion as a whole may not be the savior they expected. The conservative primates to whom these people turned have also become increasingly frustrated with their inability to bring the Archbishop of Canterbury and the entire Anglican Communion to their way of thinking. Out of this frustration GAFCON was born.
Publicly, the purpose of GAFCON (the Global Anglican Future CONferernce) seems to be evolving. I will not go into all the details here, since you can read about on their own site and on several blogs, but it becomes clearer and clearer that the organizers hope that GAFCON will realign the Anglican Communion. Ultimately, if one reads what is implied--and sometimes stated overtly--this realignment could lead to the separation of those self-proclaimed orthodox conservatives from what they view as the apostate liberal provinces. Essentially there will be two Anglican Communions, one looking toward the Archbishop of Canterbury and the other toward another figurehead, or, more likely, an Archbishop with real power in their version of a Communion. Separation. Schism.
These groups are no longer looking to change the Episcopal Church or the Anglican Communion. They have all but given up attempting to "purify" them. They are now setting in motion the mechanics to create a separate Communion. So let us identify them by their actions and call them what they are: Schismatics.
Peace,
Jeffri
The problem you have in using the word "liberal" is that it is understood differently in the U.K. to how it is understood in America. Theologically we understand the word "liberal" to mean thinkers like Bultmann, Spong, Jenkins and even Cupitt. The word is not understood to include credally orthodox Christians with radical and/or progressive agendas. To put it bluntly, I get really annoyed when I'm called a liberal, not that there's something bad about liberals but because it is a misrepresentation of who I am.
ReplyDeletePolitically, liberalism in the U.K. comes from libertarianism and is not socialist. It is more right wing than our Labour Party (and nowadays that's quite difficult).
But, My Dear Mad Priest, I would NEVER think to call you a liberal using either definition. You are, were, and always will be (forever and ever, Amen!) quite simply The Mad One.
ReplyDeleteAll joking aside, what word would you suggest in place of "liberal?" Is there a word that can be be mutually defined in all our various permutations of our (un)common language?
I think that what we tend to do here is attach words such as "radical" or "progressive" or even "liberal" or "conservative" to the churchmanship of the person referred to. So, on my side of the fence, you get radical Catholics, liberal Catholics and the pre-runner of "inclusive," "Affirming Catholics." This is long-winded but it does acknowledge the fact that some inclusive Catholics are not liberals and some liberal Catholics are not very radical in anything other than their theology. I like the term "radical" but unfortunately the phrase "radical orthodoxy" was invented and used by a group of the most pompous, arrogant, up-their-own-backside bunch of academics you could ever come across. As far as I can work out they have nothing to do with orthodoxy or radical but they did get in first. There's always Postmodern Orthodoxy - ah! that might work.
ReplyDeleteWhy not Catholic and heretic?
ReplyDelete