This was, of course, insightful and correct. A second post quotes a brief remark,
. . . which ought to raise for us the disturbing images of continuing Anglican churches where prelates seem to outnumber people.This carries forward Douglas Bess's observation a decade earlier in Divided We Stand that The Episcopal Church never felt the "continuing" secessions were worthy even of notice. Steenson on one hand is reflecting received TEC opinion here, but on the other hand, as a bishop, he's now taking notice of the post-Gene Robinson secessions that led to the ACNA, clearly a different matter if he's going to the trouble of comparing them to Donatists.
My regular correspondent notes that "The New Donatists" was delivered as the T. W. Smith Lecture at St John’s, Elora, Ontario, in 2005. Various references on versions of Steenson's curriculum vitae have said it was in the process of being published, so it appears to have been an important event at the time, at least for some, although it got little notice until it surfaced in the context of Steenson's 2007 resignation from his Episcopalian see.
The recognized start of the "continuing" movement was the 1977 Congress of St. Louis, which took place in the wake of the 1976 Episcopalian general convention that approved prayer book revisions and the ordination of women.
Steenson was not ordained an Anglican deacon in the UK until 1979, serving in TEC parishes as of 1980, so we must assume he had made his peace with the new order by the time he began his career. Those who knew him over this period recognized that he was extremely ambitious. Unlike Episcopal priests who'd been ordained before 1976, such as James Mote or Jack Barker, the developments did not come as any surprise or disappointment for Steenson.
Indeed, at least for him in his position as bishop, they were orthodoxy, or in parallel with Burkeans of 2008, since Roe v Wade was settled law, Barack Obama was the supporter of tradition, and any Republican who opposed it was the insurgent.
This comment carries the quote
Donatism did not represent a significant departure from creedal orthodoxy. But ... this is exactly what is happening in the Anglican Church of Canada and the Episcopal Church in the USA.... [These are] the creedal questions: for instance, same-sex blessing held out as marriage is a doctrinal not a disciplinary matter. When a local church acts unilaterally against the counsel, indeed the pleas, of the rest of the Christian world, who is the schismatic?Apparently the post-Robinson secessionists are acting "unilaterally against the counsel, indeed the pleas, of the rest of the Christian world"! Edmund Burke rests peacefully in his grave with a slight smile!
Several visitors have sent me links to another excerpt, which appears to be the conclusion of the paper:
. . . May I conclude by taking up a point made earlier about the Donatists’ failure of confidence. They feared the intrusion of worldly influences into their community; the future was an ominous place; they wanted to close up the Ark because the rain clouds were on the horizon, and they feared further contagion from the wicked. These are the fears that traditional, orthodox Anglicans experience also. Can they sustain themselves and preserve their identity in a hostile church? Will they be overcome by ordination policies and deployment practices designed to deny them of leaders? Will they gradually change to be more like those whose values they despise and abhor?It's hard to avoid a conclusion that Then-Bp Steenson was basically out for Jeffrey N Steenson. As of the time he delivered the T W Smith Lecture in Elora, ON in 2005, all he knew was that John Paul II had put the Anglicanorum coetibus proposal of 1993 on indefinite hold. So his course ahead would have been to make the best of spending the rest of his career as an Episcopalian bishop. But once Ratzinger became pontiff and the prelature idea was resuscitated, things changed. We can be sure that Steenson made no move until his designation as the prelate in question was fully assured, at which time he moved.It is such fears that induce faithful people to try schism, and certainly to them encouragement must be given. There is a positive value of living under the authority of this church even in those places where it seems hopelessly compromised. It is not compromise to live faithfully under the laws of such a church. And if we are in fact on the horizon of a newly aligned ecclesial world, it is crucial that we prepare spiritually for this future: by overcoming anger, by subduing passions, with charity to all. The Church that we experience now will not be the Church that will be gathered in heaven. Are not these words of the blessed Augustine wonderfully ã propos? -- “But let the separation be waited for until the end of time, faithfully, patiently, bravely.”
One question that still remains is what he anticipated for the North American ordinariate -- as things have shaken out, of course, it has become nothing but a clone of a dozen or more "continuing" denominations. As my regular correspondent pointed out,
He had neither a record of experience in starting something from scratch or being on the margin, nor the desire of a younger man on the make to throw himself into a new task of that kind. He had no competent support staff. For every Yale Divinity/Nashotah House alumnus coming forward for ordination, he had ten men with degrees from Bethel Reformed Seminary, or no recognised Divinity degree at all. He had a part-time teaching job to support himself, thanks to his patrons, the Davises. One could feel sorry for him.
