St. Bartholomew's Episcopal Church

Titusonenine mentions Ephraim Radner's piece. I like Professor Radner because he takes the long view. I think he is wrong about a few things, but right about many things.

Right now the common cause partnerships and the new Anglican province feel much more like gathered, organized free churches than ordered churches. Their main organizing principle is a hatred of the Episcopal Church and the consequences of its democratic sensibility.

They don't have much in common with one another. They are indistinguishable from everyday protestant evangelical churches, save the fancy hats and cool clothes. But the hatred, being unEpiscopal, is not enough for them to survive alone from the church.

The factions will destroy each other.

They have too many people who want to be bishops. The Episcopal Church already has that problem.

They cannot agree on Women's Ordination.

Most of their churches don't have websites.

I don't even think they agree on the filioque clause of the Nicene Creed.

And they are motivated, in my view, by frightened, small men who live in spiritual bubbles.

If they were wise, they would understand that in 20 years the Episcopal church will have had to sell most of its assets. The time would be ripe for a fairly quick reestablishment in the church. That is, if conservative theology remained a viable force within the culture.

If it is true that the evangelical, fundamentalist force is what makes churches grow, then they should be able to slowly reinvigorate the churches in the northeast.

If it is true.

If it is true that liberal churches necessarily die, then there will be buildings and communities that need care. If conservatives remain in the church and can effectively demonstrate that they really bring transformation, they will change the church. As the old church dies, the conservative church will have an opportunity to feed the people.

If it is true.

Most liberal and mainline churches are scared of their communities. They don't evangelize. They spend money on buildings rather than growth. They may think the right things, but they are often afraid of reaching out. They won't change the music. They won't change the architecture. They remain insular and inward looking.

Liberal churches been supported by its wealthy, aged population who believed in commitment and obligation. Capitalism undermined these values. Capitalism - or capitalist spirituality - also undermined the tenacity that would have permitted a conservative resurgence within the church.

I wonder if conservatives have been too reactive: like good free-marketeers, if they didn't like something, they left and sought another product. By leaving TEC they demonstrated their lack of strength to survive a culture that makes it convenient to leave, and has made our spiritual journey one of conformity rather than mutual aid or work. They unwittingly lived out the liberal problem - the capitalist problem - that churches are now franchises rather than families with rules and expectations.

Conservatives didn't have the political will to negotiate hard with their opponents. Unfortunately, conservatives seem to see the world in Manichean terms, which means that when they lose a battle, they think they've lost the war.

What may happen is that the TEC will die, selling off its churches, a handful of churches remaining. The conservatives that have left, will not be in the position of restoring the church.

Those who have remained, will.