“The formation of a parallel province is aspirational claim at this point. While the Archbishop [of Canterbury] has made clear his displeasure with the Episcopal Church, he has made clear his equal displeasure with these attempts to reorder traditional Anglican polity,” Henry D.W. Burt, secretary of the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia, said in a statement yesterday.
“He did so not only by not inviting Bishop [V. Gene] Robinson of New Hampshire to the Lambeth Conference, but also by excluding those bishops irregularly consecrated under the auspices of overseas provinces….”
The Rev. Canon Robert G. Hetherington, retired rector of St. Paul’s Episcopal Church in Richmond, reacted to yesterday’s announcement by saying, “I think it’s too bad. It’s something that’s been coming.” He added that he thinks the Rt. Rev. Peter James Lee, bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia, had “bent over backwards to be helpful and try to accommodate some of [the breakaway congregations’] views, to be inclusive of them … I have tremendous respect for his leadership.”
Hetherington added, “In my view, the great thing about the Episcopal Church is we’re not a doctrinal church. You’re not a member based on some narrow set of beliefs. It’s a place where divergent views can be expressed and held and you’re still part of the same body. That’s the sadness of this group leaving, that they just don’t want to be part of the family anymore.”
[i] “In my view, the great thing about the Episcopal Church is we’re not a doctrinal church. You’re not a member based on some narrow set of beliefs. It’s a place where divergent views can be expressed and held and you’re still part of the same body. That’s the sadness of this group leaving, that they just don’t want to be part of the family anymore.”[/i]
This view is so obviously idiotic that I can’t believe it continues to be made as if it were at all sensible. No, some “views” are logically incompatible and to advance one is to negate another. This is, of course, exactly what TEC has done.
Just to show that Richmond Episcopalians are not the only who have lost their bearings regarding doctrine, I offer the following quote, relayed to me by an Administrative Board member of a Richmond area United Methodist church. It was said to him by a new member at his church. After the Sunday morning service this new member greets him and says “You know I really like the United Methodist Church because you can pretty much believe anything you want and it’s O.K.”
Canon Heatherington is correct, up to a point. But the Episcopal Church is still putatively bound in doctrine to the Creeds of the undivided Church, and to its Catholic polity (which is not a secondary issue). Unfortunately many people do really believe that one can believe anything he wants in the Episcopal Church. It’s embarrassing when those in authority do not challenge this idea. I should observe, though, that this idea of permissiveness is present in other ecclesial venues, even, with some limits, in the RC Church.
rob k:
“It’s embarrassing when those in authority do not challenge this idea”.
Unfortunately, in TEC, it seems the heretical trends come from those in authority….
Its a sad commentary that in Northern Virginia where there are so many unchurched people searching for an authentic spiritual alternative to the pervasive, self-centeredness of modern secular society that DioVA instead offers this “buffet-style”, pseudo-Christianity. Its no wonder nobody will come through the door on Sunday because watching the NFL can be just as spiritual.
What narrow beliefs?
#3 Your point is quite valid. So is mine. How should we put it? Two wrongs don’t make aright perhaps?
As a Richmond resident for most of the last 20 years, I’ve now posted a comment on the newspaper website. I know the Rev. Bob Hetherington, although not well. He was for many years the beloved rector of downtown St. Paul’s, Richmond, where the notorious +John Shelby Spong was one of his predecessors. Fr. Hetherington is not nearly as obnoxious or foolish as that reprehensible and totally irresponsible pseudo-bishop. But his comment quoted in the Richmond Times-Dispatch is indeed symptomatic of why TEC is in the mess it’s in. It implies that we Anglicans have no doctrine at all, or no binding and enforceable doctrines anyway.
Except of course for the unofficial but normative doctrine of “inclusivity.” Any one who doesn’t tow that party line is indeed a dangerous heretic and to be treated accordingly.
David Handy+
#9
To be fair, I know how easy it is for a poor rector getting a phone call from some reporter to lapse into this kind of episco-babble. In fact, the reporters are usually fishing for it and sometimes write it themselves!
Albany+ (#10),
Yes, you’re quite right about that. I’ve been misquoted in that very newspaper, so I know it’s not always the priest’s fault when such politically correct nonsense appears in the paper. Sometimes, the reporter hears what she wants to hear.
But in this case, it’s quite credible that Fr. Hetherington, who is very much a broad churchman, would say something like he was quoted as saying.
David Handy+
Also a priest of Albany, at least canonically if not geographically
I too woould like to know what narrow beliefs are at stake here? To say I believe is to say that one believes in A, and as soon as that is said, one must therefore say I do not believe in non-A. That makes A exclusive. Is this a narrow belief? Larry
“He added that he thinks the Rt. Rev. Peter James Lee, bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia, had “bent over backwards to be helpful and try to accommodate some of [the breakaway congregations’] views, to be inclusive of them … I have tremendous respect for his leadership.”
“Inclusion”? I take it that includes litigating them at will. Should I be happy-clappy if I’m “included” that way?
I once told my mother-in-law I was tired of all her rudeness, devaluing, and nit-picking. She said, “Oh, that means I love you. I’m treating you the same way I treat my kids”.
With “friends” or “inclusion” like that, who needs enemies?