It is time to stop casting stones: it is time to realize with humility that we are all sinners saved by the grace of God, that judgment is not ours to render, and that we would do well to drop the stones we now hold and instead open our hands to each other.
This will be no easy task. The hurts and wounds are very real, and healing will come only when we are willing to let go of the pain. We need to ask for forgiveness and we need to forgive as we have been forgiven by God, and move forward in grace. Patterns of behavior have been established, many unconsciously, and we need to give each other permission to stop and say, “No, that’s they way we used to treat each other. We’re not doing that anymore.” We’ll need to re-evaluate every aspect of our lives and ask the question, “Is this the way that Jesus would have us behave and treat each other?” We will make mistakes, and there will be false starts. There will be more hurt, but if are willing to be vulnerable to one another and believe the best of each other, the old patterns will begin to melt away and we can move ahead with grace and charity.
State of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh? Pennsylvania.
RE: ” . . . and believe the best of each other, the old patterns will begin to melt away . . . ”
Yeh — we can go back to how nice everything was just 20 years ago, when most of the conservatives [well, at least the laity] were oblivious and passive and the “old patterns” of revisionist activism could be all nice and under the radar.
Great idea.
And whatever you do, laity, [i]don’t google the name Robert Hodges Johnson.[/i]
That would be a Terrible Thing To Do.
[blockquote]Our old culture would now start to throw stones. It would “Google†the Bishop’s name and begin to collect writings and voting records, it would be mistrustful and suspicious. It would dwell on the deficits and not the benefits. Perhaps some from whom we are separated will do this.
We need to not do that. Rather, we need to trust that those who have been raised up to leadership have everyone’s best interest in mind and that this is not just a human answer to a situation but a godly one as well. We need to see this appointment as God’s
way of moving us forward, to recognize it as another stone we gather in the rebuilding of our common life.â€[/blockquote]
“We will build this diocese with the stones of the incarnation. We will show the world what it means to love one another and what it means to love a world which is broken and hostile.” I wish this were true, but I doubt that 815 will allow such a strategy in the long-term. I anticipate that the PB and her legal team will try to build this new diocese with law suits. I wish these brothers and sisters in Christ all Godspeed, but I fear that they are in for a dreadful shock as the TEC establishment increasingly gains control of this new diocese and calls the shots.
I’ve gotten confused with Louie Crew’s 0’s and 1’s before but let me make a go of it:
He had pretty much a perfect score of voting for Louie Crew’s green (favorable to homosexuals) and voting against the red items (unfavorable to homosexuals). In particular, he…
1998 Signed A Pastoral Statement to Lesbian and Gay Anglicans from Some Member Bishops of the Lambeth Conference
2000 Voted for Blessing of Same-Gender Unions to be added to Book of Occasional Services (8th resolve to D039)
2000 Recognizing and affirming fidelity in relationships outside (D039)
2001 Signed a statement supporting Bishop Jane Dixon regarding her actions in Accokeek
2003 Consented to the consecration of Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire
In fact, the only strike against him was that he voted for the Frey resolution in 1991. (Bishop Frey had proposed a resolution that Episcopal clergy abstain from sex outside of marriage, and it was defeated.)
To Mr. Simons: Have fun with your new friends. Good luck. When the lawsuits start flying, do you really think the “let bygones be bygones” is going to fly?
Robroy got it right. Stop throwing stones; on to the lawsuits. This guy really has chutzpah. Statmann
[i] It is time to stop casting stones [/i] —Fr. Simons
OK. So let’s see how Fr. Simons leads by example.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
[i] We [in the Diocese of Pittsburgh] have developed a culture over the past several years that has not been one of grace and charity [/i]
A nice, cuddly start; an irenic, reconciling start. And what about Simons’ ECUSA allies? Remember the “grace and charity” shown to Bp. MacBurney. Remember the “grace and charity” shown to Bp. Duncan.
Remember the “grace and charity” shown by the likes of Bp. Howard, Bp. Bruno, Bp. Sauls, and the Burgling Bishop of Connecticut.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
[i] It was a culture of fear and control [/i]
If so, it still couldn’t hold a candle to ECUSA. Bp. Duncan never demanded an oath of personal fealty of the sort extracted by Bp. Howard. Bp. Duncan never embarked on a mass purge of dissenting clergy. He never engaged in the sort of perjured interpretation of canons we have seen from KJS and her Beers.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
[i] The old [Diocese of Pittsburgh] way, the way of throwing stones and serving the past [/i]
Talk about throwing stones. Does Simons own a mirror?
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
[i] [The ACNA consists merely of] a number of splinter groups, with perhaps 350 congregations between them [/i]
Nice belittling.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
And then he calls us . . . [i] Lemmings. Lemmings. Lemmings. [/i]
Thank you, Fr. Simons. Thank you for leading by example. We lemmings no doubt deserve a good stoning. You know best.
Perhaps that’s why you center your new diocesan budget on . . . [b][i]lawsuits[/b][/i].
[i] You will know them by their fruits [/i] —Matthew 7:16-17
[blockquote] What led to the rapid growth of the early church was not a commitment to purity of doctrine.[/blockquote]
As it stands, this is incorrect. There were two events in the history of early Christianity that were crucial for Christian identity. Both involved doctrine, and both involved distinguishing catholic Christianity from plausible “look-a-likes.” The first was the distinguishing of Christianity from Judaism; the second, from Gnosticism. If Christianity had remained part of the synagogue, it would have remained a Jewish sect; if Christianity had not distinguished itself from gnosticism, it would have been absorbed into the general syncretism of the Greco-Roman world. Because Christianity insisted (over against) Judaism that Jesus was really the Messiah and that he had risen from the dead, it could not be remain a Jewish sect. Because Christianity insisted that the same God who created the world had redeemed the world in Christ, and that the canonical Scriptures (and only the canonical Scriptures) were the inspired record of this revelation, and the Rule of Faith the correct interpretation of the canonical Scriptures, catholic Christianity had to have nothing to do with gnosticism.
The very same issues that distinguished Christianity from Judaism and gnosticism are the issues that divide the Episcopal Church today. If Jesus is not the way but merely a way or the way for Christians but not for everyone, then it is rather pointless to insist (over against Judaism) that Jesus really is God’s chosen Messiah who fulfilled prophecy and rose from the dead. If we can correct Scripture when it comes to issues of sexuality, and if salvation consists in inclusiveness, then it makes little sense to have insisted over against gnosticism that the God who created the world (including creating humanity as male and female) is the same God who redeemed the world in Christ, and that the Church was correct over against Gnosticism on insisting on the authority of the canonical Scriptures (and only the canonical Scriptures) and the Rule of Faith as the correct interpretation of the Scriptures.
Certainly there is a kind of tolerance and diversity in the Episcopal Church (ignoring the lawsuits, and ignoring bishops, like my former, who change locks on church buildings, depose rectors, and remove vestry members on unspecified charges), but it is not the tolerance and diversity of catholic Christianity, but rather the syncretism of gnostic heresy. I can understand staying inside to fight that for all that one was worth, but I am baffled as to why one who called oneself a Christian would want to embrace it willingly.
This is an infuriating speech, precisely because its piety is manipulative, and dishonest. This is not mere name calliing on my part. The evidence is stacked in rank on rank. At every turn, TEC has used language to manipulate, they have altered denotation and connotation, they tortured standard speech to create special distinctions that satisfy their own agenda. And now, we are to believe that TEC wishes to reform itself in Christ’s image and ways. But buried therein, we meet the word “diversity” and we realize what the speaker’s purpose is, to etiolate and attentuate opposition by using the language of peace to assert a soft domination.
This speech is a counter-attack, a form of suffocation with sweetness, as if he were spreading a toxic marshmallow Fluff on peanut butter. I have read many a TEC verbal gambit here, but this is monstrous in its audacity. As many another has asked, why would any Episcopalian wish to stay in the same church as such pusillanimity? Larry
Obviously, Mr. Simons has been living someplace other than the Diocese of Pittsburgh for lo these many years. Which is strange since many of us have seen him on the occasions when his new allies attacked Bishop Duncan unrelentingly and personally – when a prominent present ally compared Bishop Duncan and those who supported him to the KKK and the Nazis. Only once have I ever seen Bishop Duncan respond sharply to an attack and that happened when he was harangued by a lay member of the Diocesan leadership team as a “racist” and a “homophobe”. He (Duncan) apologized personally and publicly for responding that way. The culture described by Mr. Simon existed only among the members of the “diocese” he wants to lead. What he wrote and said is purely and simply, a “misstatement” (among the more plain-spoken people whom I serve another noun describes Mr. Simons words).
I believe Jim was including himself in the culture that he wanted the EDP to leave. He too was involved in some stone throwing along with the Bishop and the Bishop’s followers.
So I take it that he is confessing to past wrongs on his side too.
[i] Comment removed by elf at the request of the commenter. [/i]
I find Jim Simons’ speech to be a very disturbing one, but the one aspect that I found the most disturbing was his criticism of anyone who might question the leadership choices made by the Standing Committee. Simons essentially has told the laity of the new TEC diocese not to question anything, because if they do, they are being “bad”. This attitude, more then anything else, has made me believe that Jim Simons (who I don’t know personally, but have heard others speak very highly of) has finally chosen to take the “blue pill”.
jamesW: I agree that it is strange that Jim asked the diocese not to question its leadership. Afterall those in that diocese questioned the leadership of the former Bishop of the EDP(TEC), found it wanting and decided not to “jump ship” to the Southern Cone.
I bet the EDP(TEC) will not fall in line easily and will indeed question things if they are out of order.
Eugene #13, the incoming bishop’s stances are already out of order with respect to the Christian Faith – see comment #4.
When does the questioning start? Should I hold my breath?
Jim Simons is Rector of St. Michael of the Valley at Rector, Pa. The church serves the Ligonier area. Many years ago R. C. Sproul would attend and receive Communion there. His daughter was married there. I served there as substitute acolyte for weekday communions. I feel the irony of a church considered Orthodox by R. C. Sproul to have chosen to remain in TEO, which is, at best, heterodox. Fr. Simons is reputed to be a conservative priest. I can’t understand how he can choose to side with TEO given it’s proven record of heresy.
Dumb Sheep.
Ethanasius: The institutionalist clergy who ‘long’ for TEC also want to protect their pocketbooks and their looming pensions. I personally know over 25 active clergy who have quietly informed me that, “I would leave, but I/we/my family can’t afford it.” Before you condemn this out of hand, think how it would affect YOUR family to lose your job, the roof over your head, your health insurance and future pension. It’s much easier for laity or clergy in large, wealthy parishes (or whom have family/spouse wealth themselves) to leave.
Little Cabbage.
Good point. The cost of leaving TEC is a lot for many priests. Too much for some. What I don’t understand is harshly condemning those of us who have realigned, and that has been the attitude of some (not all) of those who chose to remain in TEC.
A little less rancor from all involved would be best.
I totally agree, Ethanasius.