'Via Media, but Which One?' - by Bishop Duncan

“Via Media, but Which One?” - a column by Bishop Duncan

Bishop Duncan asks what “Via Media” means in the Episcopal Church today.

“By 1593 the Church of England had shown plainly that it would not walk in the ways either of Geneva or of Rome. This is the origin of the famous Via Media, the middle way, of the Church of England…Anglicanism is a very positive form of Christian belief; it affirms that it teaches the whole of Catholic faith, free from the distortions, the exaggerations, the over-definitions both of the Protestant left wing and of the right wing of Tridentine Catholicism. Its challenge can be summed up in the phrases, ‘Show us anything clearly set forth in Holy Scripture that we do not teach, and we will teach it; show us anything in our teaching and practice that is plainly contrary to Holy Scripture, and we will abandon it.” (Stephen Neill, Anglicanism p. 119)

For generations we Anglicans have understood ourselves to offer a middle way, a via media.  In a very similar vein, we have often spoken of our calling as that of a “bridge” church.

These self-understandings depended on reference to realities on either side:  through what land were we the middle way?  Between what shores were we the bridge?

As General Convention approaches, we should all listen carefully to which via media is on offer.  Pay attention to which bridge any sales team is inviting us to cross.

For many years now via media image and the bridge image were always drawn with Catholicism on one side and Protestantism on the other.  We believed that we Anglicans, at our best, were the middle way among Christians.  From our vantage point we could see in both directions.  We touched both shores.  We were at the “center” of Christian understanding and living, of received Faith and Order.  For me, for instance, that means valuing both the wisdom of the reformers and the theological heritage of a united western Christendom.  It means striving to be in relationship with our many Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic neighbors here in Pittsburgh as well as with those in protestant and evangelical fellowships.  To stand in the middle of the saints is a unique gift that God has given to our church.

But is that what many people mean when they claim to stand in the “via media” today? I don’t believe so. The Episcopal Church in the United States of America is presently holding up a “via media” with vastly different fields on either side, offering a “bridge” between very different shores.  The via media now on offer is a middle way between Christianity and the modern world. We are the church where Scripture is often not God’s Word but “good words.” We are the church that says less and less about Sin and Redemption through Jesus Christ and yet pronounces, ex cathedra, as it were, more and more about national budgets and secular political platforms. The bridge now being advertised is one between classic Christianity and secular culture. Worse, instead of simply using that bridge to bring Christian faith and values to the culture (the work of the whole church at all times), we seem much more interested in making it into an avenue dedicated to bringing secular values into the church. In this shift the place of the Episcopal Church has been moved from the very mainstream of Christian witness to the margins of the Christian enterprise. This is a radical shift. And, as the numbers of our own statisticians at headquarters bear out, this is a suicidal shift, at least in terms of Christian mission and Christian identity. 

As General Convention approaches, we should all listen carefully to which via media is on offer.  Pay attention to which bridge any sales team is inviting us to cross. 

Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.  That is His claim, Easter’s message, and the Church’s gospel.  Our middle way needs to be right through the center of that proclamation.  Our bridge needs to tie the bearers of these affirmations ever nearer to each other.  Any other via media or any other bridge leads to a place of danger, distortion and even death.

Whatever happens this June, those of us committed to the classical “via media” have every intention of continuing our witness at the very center of Christian faith and order and in the very middle of Scripture’s Gospel.

Editor’s Note:  Bishop Robert Duncan originally wrote this column for The Living Church, which published it in their May 21 issue.

    Comments & Responses

  1. From the above article:

    “Whatever happens this June, those of us committed to the classical “via media” have every intention of continuing our witness at the very center of Christian faith and order and in the very middle of Scripture’s Gospel.”

    The divison is not really as simple as black/white. There are many that agree with some elements of both sides of the many issues we face as a church.

    Episcopalians are well educated and individuals have views that do not strictly conform to one side ot the other. The problem comes from the extremes elements on the far edges of the church. The vast center is oriented to finding support for all actions in the Bible. The difference comes from different focuses. Blind faith or reason from modern biblical research. It is not a total black/white division.

    Posted by  on  05/16  at  12:47 PM

  2. McCabe wrote “The vast center is oriented to finding support for all actions in the Bible.”

    How does the vast center find support for this,

    “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.” Leviticus 20:13

    How could “blind faith or reason from modern biblical research” not read this as a total black/white statement.

    Not much wiggle room for “well educated Episcopalians” to slither from!

    Rafe

    Posted by  on  05/16  at  10:32 PM

  3. The modern way of interpretitation is flawed. Both methods I have seen remarked about try to equate the bible to modern secular values. Where they can’t coexist, ie. Lv. 18:22, they dismiss it as irrelivant. This is faulty logic. It, by twisting or ignoring passages altogether, changes scripture. I would wonder what God thinks about the coruption of his word.

    Posted by  on  05/17  at  01:23 AM

  4. The first thng to say is that we are not Jews and that Old Testament law isn’t binding on us.

    How about these laws from the same chapter of Liviticus:

    “ 9 “ If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother, and his blood will be on his own head.”

    By this law, almost every person in the modern world would be murdered for Jesus.

    10 “ ‘If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.”

    By this law, Henry VIII would have to have been beheaded not his poor wives. You remember dear King Henry, he is the founder of the Anglican church.

    or

    25 “ ‘You must therefore make a distinction between clean and unclean animals and between unclean and clean birds. Do not defile yourselves by any animal or bird or anything that moves along the ground—those which I have set apart as unclean for you.”

    Have you had any ham or bacon lately?

    ACTS 15: 8-11 Peter speaks

    “8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? 1 1No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”

    and the rules for Gentiles:

    Acts 15: 27-29

    “27 Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing.

    28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements:

    29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.”

    Posted by  on  05/17  at  03:35 AM

  5. mccab

    Articles of Religeon

    VII. Of the Old Testament.
    The Old Testament is not contrary to the New: for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to Mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and Man, being both God and Man. Wherefore they are not to be heard, which feign that the old Fathers did look only for transitory promises.
    ----------------------------
    Although the Law given from God by Moses, as touching Ceremonies and Rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the Civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth; yet notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the Commandments which are called Moral.
    --------------------------------

    We are bound to the moral laws.

    All you liberals use the same tired old retoric. The punishments are cival precepts. The dietary are cival precepts.

    As for stoning them, Jesus abrocated that with “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”

    None of the Livitical Laws you mentioned were (accept for the sin itself) from the moral laws such as thoes in chapter 18.

    This is the future of your retreat from scripture. {Hay! I want to marry my sheep. It should be allowed as we both love each other.}

    Whats next pedopheilia...incest…
    Why get married at all. It doesn’t make a difference. We can pick and choose what we want and God will forgive us......

    This is the track the ECUSA is on mccabe and those like you are pushing it. It’s time to put a stop to the apostacy of the ECUSA, and it’s leading so many innocent souls to perdition.

    Posted by  on  05/17  at  04:25 AM

  6. “Sexual immorality” pretty well covers adultery and homosexual intercourse and, if you read the “rules for Gentiles” [sic] in the Acts passage cited by mccabe, you will find the new believers are admonished “to avoid these things.” The Gentiles were far more libertine in their attitudes toward sexual behavior than were the Jews, so such an admonition would have been radically counter-cultural for new believers in the Greco-Roman world. Paul would later write that mature believers could eat whatever they wished, as long as it did not present a stumbling block to new believers. But he steadfastly maintained the covenental proscriptions against all forms of sexual immorality, as did other New Testament writers including Peter, John, and Jude.

    The reason for the consistent Scriptural (Old and New Testament) proscription against adultery, homosexuality, and all other forms of deviant sexual behavior is that God’s provision for sexual expression between one man and one woman within the covenental bond of marriage transcends any temporal provision of ritual or ceremonial law. In fact, the Mosaic law includes several provisions for divorce and polygamy which Jesus later said were only concessions to human weakness. From the beginning of creation, however, God created human beings in his image, male and female. He did not create male for male or female for female. Rather, he created male for female, female for male. Every Scriptural proscription against homosexual behavior and all other forms of sexual immorality is rooted not in cultural or sectarian norms, but in the very nature of creation itself. We do not hold that homosexual behavior is wrong because “the Bible says so.” Rather, “the Bible says so” because homosexual behavior is utterly contrary to God’s purpose in creation. Even without the handful of Old and New Testament texts which prohibit homosexual behavior, the creation account itself would be sufficient to recognize that God sees such behavior as an abomination.

    Posted by James Gibson  on  05/17  at  04:48 AM

  7. Excelent post James. I see the ECUSA’s drift away from such truths to be at the core of the problems.

    Thank you.

    Posted by  on  05/17  at  06:13 AM

  8. I would highly recommend Philip Turner’s essay, “An Unworkable Theology,” in the May/June 2005 issue of First Things. It is an excellent summation of the problems of ECUSA and other mainline bodies.

    http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0506/opinion/turner.html

    Posted by James Gibson  on  05/17  at  06:24 AM

  9. James

    I found the esay both interesting and profound. I can truly relate to his comments about being away from things and returning to find something radicaly different; not having been a part of the propaganda campain.

    When I was in the Navy (1963-1967) I went to the Episcopal Cathedrel in Jacksonville Florida and found the services to be the same as my home church. I don’t think the same would apply today as the services probably do change from parish to parish.

    All I can say is: sad, sad.

    Posted by  on  05/17  at  07:09 AM

  10. Returning to the subject of the column in question, I cannot help but notice that +Duncan isn’t really saying much here beyond the fact that he and other orthodox Anglicans within the ECUSA intend to continue the fight, regardless of what happens at General Convention. If I were an orthodox priest in the ECUSA, I would be quite perplexed that traditionalist leaders continue to offer no vision for the future other than “let’s keep fighting the good fight no matter how far the institution strays from the truth.”

    We are not without our debates and dialogues within the AMiA. But when we have such discussions, it’s over the question of how we might best proclaim the Gospel and reach the lost, rather than over which “gospel” we want to proclaim, if any at all. I fail to understand why so much energy continues to be expended in trying to salvage some semblance of orthodoxy within an institution that has become so corrupted by pansexual revisionists that it has lost all claim to being part of the one holy catholic and apostolic church of Jesus Christ.

    In light of the fact that the ECUSA continues to fall further and further away from the faith once delivered, when does staying and fighting cease to be an act of faithful witness and become, instead, an act of complicity which only serves to extend the life of an institution which, with regard to fulfilling the Great Commission, is doing immeasurably more harm than good?

    Posted by James Gibson  on  05/17  at  10:06 AM

  11. James

    I think a lot of it has to do with wanting to take the church back fron the revisionists that hijacked it in the 70’s. The orthodox have been sitting on their keasters so long thinking every thing would work out that they were hit between the eyes with Robenson and the pansexual movement. Most was done esentually undercover and many were subtly indocrinated with the revisionist agenda. If something can’t be done at the convention to take back the church then.......... Who knows.

    I’m already looking at several orthodox options, then the mccabes of the ECUSA can have a rotting, Godless, church and do what they want with it. But not without a fight.

    Posted by  on  05/18  at  03:50 AM

  12. “If marriage is only allowed to control passion then why not allow gays to form committed relationships to curb burning passion? The sin is uncontrolled passion.”

    Homosexual relationships can never be anything but an expression of uncontrolled passion, regardless of how “committed” those relationships may be. Marriage between a man and woman has been part of God’s plan from the beginning of creation. The union of man and woman symbolizes the mystical union of Christ and the Church (as anyone familiar with the Anglican marriage rite knows). In marriage, husband and wife give themselves to each other in a selfless act of unconditional love, reflecting the perfect image of God, whose nature is self-giving, holy love. Such an act of mutual self-sacrifice overcomes the uncontolled passion which would otherwise lead to the most unspeakable of sinful indulgence. So-called “committed relationships” between persons of the same sex cannot be anything but a reflection of the fallen state of humanity and the brokenness of the whole creation. Such relationships are rooted not in self-giving, unconditional love, but in the very selfish, uncontrolled passion of which Paul writes.

    Posted by James Gibson  on  05/18  at  09:52 AM
    13. Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

Next entry: Archbishop Henry Orombi: ‘We need to go to the foot of the Cross…’

Previous entry: New Zealand Bishop quits to become missionary

<< Back to main