This is prompted in part by a student paper from my mass of grading I’m slowly coming out from under…since I think my grades are due today…

If people complain that the Trinity isn’t in the Bible, they ought to complain even more about the Economic Trinity: “Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier.” The more I think about it, the more uncomfortable I am with it, especially in its current liturgical use. This formulation is—as far as I know—a construct of liberal protestant theology without particularly deep roots in Christian practice, especially in the ways it’s coming more and more into use. My reading of medieval sources in particular is often at odds with it in several key respects and highlights the dissonances within it for me.

Increasingly, the Economic Trinity is gaining favor as a liturgical substitute for the classical Trinitarian of “Father, Son, Holy Spirit”; functionally, people seem to map the terms with the various parts of the Godhead: Father=Creator, Redeemer=Son, Sanctifier=Holy Spirit. I don’t know if this was the original intent of the folks who constructed it or not but it’s certainly the way it’s playing out in our faith communities. And as strict equivalencies—they don’t work. Medieval catechetical documents lift up Christ as creator in ways at odds with this construction. And, when the dissonance is probed, the New Testament evidence—John, the Pauline group, the Petrines—comes down much more on the medieval side than the modern side. The same is true of disassociating the Father for the Redeemer;  who is it that leads out his people “with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm”?

Professional theologians have the learning and leisure to sit around and discuss how Christ is functioning in the Exodus narrative or in Creation and how the economic terms neither precisely limit nor delineate the persons of the Godhead—but most other folks don’t. I suggest we think real hard about the theological problems of replacing one with the other before making it an unreflective liturgical change. It’s the unreflective changes that seem like a good idea at the time that can lead not only us but our fellow believers into trouble…

And yes, that last post would have been an opportunity to use one of Lil’ G’s favorite words—that isn’t a word. She’s quite good with language and is still working through the intricacies and rules of English use. Recently, she’s begun using the word “amn’t” (especially in defenses of her behavior or other denials) that functions in the same way as isn’t and aren’t. We’re attempting to persuade her that such a word really doesn’t exist. Linguistically, though, I am’nt sure why it doesn’t… My guess would be that the vowels I and a elide more naturally into “I’m” (hence the more standard “I’m not”) rather than the m and n.

Ok, M didn’t say the blog was boring, just that it was primarily academic and political and didn’t talk much about our family life. And she’s entirely right. And yes, part of the point is to let our friends scattered around the country know what we’re up to so I’ll write more about such things.

M told me last night that she’s been reading the blog and has decided that—particularly in reference to other’s like LP’s—my blog is boring. I talk too much about Anglican stuff. Yeah, she’s probably right. So—a bit of levity for your Friday, a thought from the day from one of my co-workers that I’ll pass on for the amusement of the twisted:

Some people are like "slinkies". They’re not really good for anything; but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs.

Ok—here’s my picks for how things are going down. My best guess is that by next Christmas we’ll have:

++Schori as Primate of TEC (Anglican Communion)

++Williams as Archbishop of Canterbury (Anglican Communion)

+Duncan as Primate of All America (Evangelical Communion)

+Nazir-Ali as Primate of All England (Evangelical Communion)

I’m actually not going to call where ++Akinola will fit into this whole picture; I think it’s still too soon to guess…

Thanks to the magic of the Internet, we’ve got a clarification. The author of the piece responded to my query on TA and said in part:

By "we understand" we mean "we draw the inference from the number and speed of current events" or "our reading of the direction of recent statements is". Very happy to replace "we understand" with "it is probable that".

So–it is a ratcheting up of rhetoric. The timing does make things look suspicious but there is no proof.

Thinking Anglicans has put up a statement by the InclusiveChurch. Apparently the famed Anglican reserve has been put on a shelf because they come out swinging:

1.0 Conservative Evangelicals are clearly trying to create a defining moment for the Anglican Communion. The declaration by the Anglican Church of Tanzania separating itself from all who ordain, who are, or who support homosexual people, together with Reform’s “Covenant” are the next stages in the rolling out of a strategy which will, if allowed to proceed destroy the Anglican Communion.

2.0 We are seeing the development of a long term plan developed by various people on various continents which is intended to bring the Anglican Communion out of its historically generous and open position, into a narrowly defined, confessional group of churches rooted in the religious right of the United States and extending from there across the world.

2.1 We understand that the Tanzania declaration was produced at the behest of others with the specific aims of undermining the Presiding Bishop of the United States, challenging the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and derailing the moves towards an inclusive Covenant which the Communion is beginning to make. It is a deliberately incendiary move. The intention is to pre-empt any decisions the Primates’ Meeting in February might make so that elements from the Global South and disaffected elements of the Episcopal Church rebels can proceed with their plan to set up an alternative Communion.

3.0 Reform’s “Covenant” brings this strategy into England. [continues from here… Read the rest if the link worked…]

These are some very serious allegations, especially what’s written in 2.1. These things should not be said without supporting documentation—where is it? If it exists then it’s time for the fat lady to start singing; if not, then this means the left is raising their own schism-producing efforts to new levels.

Either way, I don’t like it. “It” being the plans-within-plans, the gossip-mongering, the he-said-she-said, the let’s-you-and-him-fight, etc. ad nauseum. I’m so at “nauseum.” In short, I’m really tired of the political motivated power struggles over resources and money. It’s expensive—because it costs us our Gospel. On both sides.  This is no way for a church to behave.

Now I completely realize that I’m not at stake in this fight either. I’m not gay and no one’s trying to either push me out of the priesthood or out of the church all together. I’m also not likely to be shut out of a discernment process for being too conservative. I do believe that female clergy is a big piece of this realignment puzzle and I am fully invested in that one… All this is to say, to the degree that I represent the not-at-stake Anglican, both extremes are becoming truly irritating; something’s got to give and soon.