[Tim] Carson reveals an astounding ignorance of facts in his commentary, which is largely an attack on the Rt. Rev. Jack L. Iker, bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth.
First, he alleges that Iker “has withdrawn from the established Diocese of the Episcopal Church in the U.S.A.,” and he challenges the legitimacy of the body of which Iker is chief pastor.
But Carson ignores the fact that at the November 2008 convention of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth, a resolution to realign with the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone was adopted by a 78 percent majority of the clergy voting and 80 percent of lay delegates. This was the second such vote in two years, as any amendment to the constitution of the Diocese requires a concurrent majority of the vote of both orders, clergy and lay, in two consecutive conventions.
This was not the unilateral action of the bishop. Nor was it the creation of a “newly founded” diocese, as Carson claims. It was, in fact, the constitutionally legitimate action of the diocese “that has been here all along” (to use, ironically, the words Carson intended as sarcasm).
Carson then alleges that “it only seems right to the good bishop [Iker] that all of the assets and congregations should stay with him, even if he cashes in his chips, leaves the mother ship and affiliates with an African one.”
Here again, Carson ignores facts.
I would question Mr Carson’s lack of his faculties.
Despite the glaring inaccuracies in Mr. Carson’s article, the pity of it is that many will read this article and accept it as truth.
The Fort Worth Star-Telegram has done a decent job of presenting both sides fairly. They have given space to columns and letters that support the TEC diocese and the SC diocese. Terry Goodrich, the principle reporter on this story, has done good work balancing the angles and giving each side the last word in his various stories.
Mark the calendar: it’s been 20 years since I said anything nice about the Startlegram, but give credit where credit’s due.
Pastor Carson has been a proud advocate for progressive/liberal religion for many many years now – having establish a long relationship with revisionist leaders in TEC. No one should be surprised that he has once again expressed his pluralistic views of what is ‘right’ without allowing the facts getting in his way.
What is interestion is the working mindset that TEC is in the AC in theory, but in practice treats it as another denomination.
#3–I would have to agree that the Star-Telegram has been much more fair in their coverage of this than they have been in years. But, Mr. Carson’s letter was so filled with inacuracies, that the blame has to be placed on the editors. Mr. Marchand has done a great job in responding and setting the record straight.
Pastor Carson has no business making these ignorant comments.
i wrote to mr. carson via his website and included the link to the response.
Here’s the thing: it makes little difference what anyone says or does, the difference falls on whether one believes that the ecclesiastical structure under the control of Bishop Iker is the rightful continuation of the always-established diocese, The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth, Protestant Episcopal Church in the U.S.A., or whether the ecclesiastical structure under the control of Bishop Iker is a breakaway organization calling itself The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth but under another Province of the Anglican Communion, thus a new or different diocesan entity despite the use of the traditional name (whether copyrighted or not).
Those who are hell-bent on believing either view exclusively will yell and gnash teeth at each other in their anger and bitterness (hardly abiding by the notion that “they will know them by their love”) in the newspapers or on the radio or in public, anywhere. To the general public, it makes the entire group of people look petty, childish, hypocritical, and otherwise anything but Christian. In all of our self-righteousness, do we truly consider that the “outsiders” look in and see yet another justification for believing that the whole church thing just isn’t worth it?
Bob, it seems to me that it makes little difference “whether one believes that the ecclesiastical structure under the control of Bishop Iker is the rightful continuation of the always-established diocese,” or not. The difference should come from whether in fact the diocese acted within its rights in accordance with its canons or not. Also, in this case the article linked above seems to be an honest defense in the face of false accusations leveled against the diocese by an outsider. It is neither petty nor childish to reasonably defend oneself from such an accusation.
In general we shouldn’t base how we act on how outsiders might misconstrue things. If there are serious issues to be dealt with, then they need to be dealt with, period. Outsiders might have misconstrued Christ’s overturning of the money changer’s tables in the synagogue but Christ dealt with it. Paul might have been misconstrued as petty by outsiders when he publicly corrected Peter on his treatment of the Gentiles. I agree that petty differences should be left alone but real differences that demand serious attention and decision should not be left alone simply to save face in the public arena.
It’s a good question, Bob G+, but what do you want the Church to do when error and falsehood is introduced into the community? Should we ignore it for the sake of feigned unity, so as not to “look bad” to the pagan world? Or, should we consider that Jesus said, “I have not come to bring peace, but a sword?”
What I think Christ was telling us is that Truth is inherently divisive, but our response should not be to engage in shades of gray to avoid that division.
“In all of our self-righteousness, do we truly consider that the “outsiders†look in and see yet another justification for believing that the whole church thing just isn’t worth it? ”
True enough Bob G+; I guess its a good thing we have that whole Holy Spirit thing alive and intervening to save souls. Was the Reformation pretty? What did Luther see within the Church when he had his pilgramage to Rome? God called him, not to chuck the whole thing, which would have made sense, but to preach the Gospel of what Jesus accomplished on the cross. This is not dependent on our self righteousness, real or imagined. As Martin Luther said, Sin Boldly; if Jesus’ sacrifice is real there needs to be a real sin on my part. Is God impressed if we are polite while we deny the essentails of the paith?
John 18:37 (New King James Version)
“Pilate therefore said to Him, “Are You a king then?†Jesus answered, “You say rightly that I am a king. For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.â€
Without truth, you have nothing. The article is not of the truth. Draw your own conclusions.
RE: “Those who are hell-bent on believing either view exclusively will yell and gnash teeth at each other in their anger and bitterness (hardly abiding by the notion that “they will know them by their love”) . . . ”
Not certain how telling the truth in a newspaper and correcting facts is unloving.
RE: “In all of our self-righteousness, do we truly consider that the “outsiders†look in and see yet another justification for believing that the whole church thing just isn’t worth it?”
Oh, I think that the outsiders are intelligent enough to understand that it’s just The Episcopal Church, rather than “the whole church thing.”
And that’s a good thing.
To John (#10), I want to respond: We have the obligation of being witness to the Way of Christ, taking up His cross above and against our own wants or feelings, and we continue to forgo that responsibility. Outsides often see things for what they really are because they have no “dog in the hunt.” “They will know us…” how? How we love – and this isn’t sentimentality, but terribly difficult and “giving up of self” kinds of attitudes and actions. Attempting to look in as an “outsider,” attempting to understand how the unchurched and possible seekers might see all this and the affect on them, I don’t believe the actions of the two different groups (TEC or the dioceses attempting to leave) are fundamentally any different, except by way of the trajectory from which they come.
To Phil (#11): Error and falsehood reside on both sides – within TEC leadership, God knows, and also within the “reasserter” diocesan leadership – (as much as either side wants to refuse to see their own error). Until we all face up to the fact that neither group has “it all together” or understands fully as if not through the glass dimly, will continue to act as the world acts – pride comes before the fall. It is humility and patience that will see us through – the very thing the world lacks – despite how the other guy or other group acts toward us. God is patient; why cannot we be patient with one another as God is patient with our own individual sin, error, and all-to-human proclivities? We act just like impatient, hyper-individualist, and unsaved, Americans. How terribly easy and good feeling it is to look at that other person at the rail and say, “Oh, thank you Lord that I am not like…”
The world sees us as hypocrites, and I’m sorry to say that we are acting hypocritically, as if we know nothing about the grace, mercy, and long suffering that our Saviour shows to each of us, individually, in our sin, error, and pride.
Saray (#14): I commend to you the book, “unchristian,” by the Barna Research Group when considering how the “outsiders” perceive the Church and Christians and the effect we are having on them. There are plenty of other research and observations about how “outsiders” view the Christians in this country. It isn’t pretty, and we really are defaming Christ and His cause. We have to realize this.
The nation Church or the diocese is not an “island unto itself” and cannot do whatever they/it wants without consideration of the significance to the whole. The national Church has done just that within the greater Anglican Communion, but now we see individual dioceses doing the exact same thing within the nation Church. Whether the rationale or reasons are legitimate or not, the actions themselves are of the same kind – we will do whatever we will do and make up our own justifications against the Tradition come-hell-or-high-water.
The Episcopal Church leadership is determined to do what it wants, the diocesan leadership is determined to do what it wants. One group comes from a “liberal” or progressive trajectory while the other group comes from a “conservative” or traditionalist trajectory – the outcome is the same, division of the Body of Christ. Shouts of “you did it first” or “its all our fault” are simply immature – and that is the way it looks to the world that needs salvation, I hate to say.
It makes little difference what the Episcopal Church canons or structures allow for or not, if all we do is what we want without real and honest consideration of the whole Communion. It makes little difference what diocesan canons say or don’t say, or how they are changed to say what is wanted, without real consideration of the whole – the outcome and perhaps the underlying motivations are the same. We are so myopic and impatient. We want immediacy and “our will be done,” no matter what.
Division and abuse of the Body of Christ result from the actions of both entities. It will be the same outcome – lessening our understanding and experience of the Way of Jesus Christ and the defamation of our witness to the world of a better way. We have all failed in these challenges, but we don’t have to continue to fail by continuing down the same well trodden path of division and self-righteous indignation.
RE: “I commend to you the book, “unchristian,†by the Barna Research Group when considering how the “outsiders†perceive the Church and Christians and the effect we are having on them.”
Oh I completely agree that Christians and Church are not perceived well by many outsiders.
And I don’t think that has a thing to do with TEC and conservatives resisting — either on the inside or the outside — 815’s agenda.
The two matters are very different. As I said — I’m confident that people reading the news are well able to distinguish between TECan strife and their average ire with Christ and Church.
I understand that you’d rather not think that and don’t. And I’m comfortable with that as well.
Based on my belief, however, and foundational worldview, I’m thrilled at the resistance both inside and outside, and the more public and news-based, the better.
Sarah – From what I read from the research, secular and Christian, while “outsiders” may understand the differences in the arguments made by TEC or the leaving dioceses, to them the way we act and react toward each other – the way we treat each other – do not match up to our professed ideals. And, what we decide to fight over is unimportant to their questions or concerns. All this stuff does impact their view of the Church and Christians and their willingness to give a listen to what we try to say about Christ and the Christian life.
Bob G+, #17, I understand what you are saying. What I want to ask you is what you recommend as far as how to act Christian for each side in the Ft. Worth situation and in any situation in which a “traditionalist” or “reasserter” is dealing with the leadership or “reappraising” side of TEC … and vice versa. In other words, what should each side be doing differently (or should have done differently)? In response to the actions of TEC hierchy in relation to Bp Robinson and the forcing of WO on all dioceses, what should Ft Worth have done? In response to Ft Worth voting to leave, what should TEC have done? In response to TEC’s filing lawsuits, what should Ft Worth do or have done? No question, PR has been awful for both sides – but what is your solution?
Billy (#18) – Sorry for the length. Let me give two examples, one as a priest that certainly doesn’t agree with many of the issues that are being advanced by the current leadership of TEC; the second from an example of a family that dealt with their gay son and his partner. This isn’t about acquiescing to an agenda or people’s theological or pietistic or moral positions, but the way we understand ourselves, what God calls us to within Christ’s Great Commandments, and how we treat other people – whether the “weaker brother/sister,” someone in perceived error, or even our enemy.
If I have an ecclesiology that is Catholic, which I have come into, and not American-Evangelical (primarily congregationalist), which I came out of, then there is an acceptance that the vows I made to obey my bishop and abide by the worship and discipline of “this” Church have to be taken very, very seriously. I had a very difficult time making such vows, because frankly I don’t trust my life to other people. Yet, I made the vow because I believed that is what God wanted me to do, and it was confirmed by the community that I should be a priest.
If I as a priest, or as lay member for that matter, I come to have great difficultly with the position, actions, or teachings of my bishop (or priest), then I have a problem. If the official teaching of the Church, reflected in the Prayer Book, is orthodox and remains the official teaching by Canon of this Church, then I do not feel I am released by God from my vows, even though I’m going to have a very tough time abiding under my bishop and even though I may be very unpopular and persecuted. That is my cross to bear, but my vow before God was not just in times of convenience or during good times. This is just like the marriage vow between spouses – “in sickness or in health, etc.” To my people, I will remain true to my vow and to the official position of the Church, the Prayer Book – which reflects Scripture and all things necessary for salvation.
If I am required by my bishop to do something contrary to my conscience rightly discerned (not just something I don’t like or want to do – Rite II rather than Rite I), or if the official teaching of the Church changes by Canon or Prayer Book revision to a position that I cannot in good faith abide by (she has an affair – Jesus isn’t really the divine Son of God), I have a crisis of conscience.
At that point, if reconciliation is not possible, then I will resign and leave. If my people are like minded, than I would encourage them to do as their conscience dictates and find another community of faith. If some want to organize another church, fine, but they go and do so in another place. Before God, my vows are not violated, I act with integrity and in charity even to my “enemy,” no law suits are pertinent, we have an amicable parting, rather than a very messy divorce.
It is not right of me, IMHO, to attempt to take, to usurp, to break vows as if there should not be or cannot be consequences, etc. I can have a great deal of respect for those clerics or lay people that simply resign or leave. In my mind, that presents an picture of a mature way of dealing with conflicts before the world.
If a very large majority of the diocese suddenly emptied the churches and found themselves worship in other places, that would have a far greater impact on TEC and I think a far greater impression on “outsiders.” After all, what in the world would they do with all those empty buildings? But, that isn’t what is happening. Lutherans were pursued and tortured by the Roman Catholics. Giving up buildings, statues, or candles (even memories) is of little consequence, frankly.
Secondly, there was a Christian family that was absolutely opposed to homosexuality. Their son came out. They were devastated and in no way approved of their son’s same-sex relationship. Their son had a partner, and the parents welcomed the partner to their home and decided to love the partner as they loved their son, even though there was no question that they did not approve of the relationship. Soon, the relationship ended. They kept contact with their son and his former partner, even continuing to have their son’s former partner to their home. In time, their son’s former partner accepted Jesus as his Lord and Savior.
If they had acted with indignation and exercised their right to reject their son’s partner and not allow their son to be part of their family’s life until he got his life right with the Lord, this young man probably would never have accepted Jesus as his savior, but would probably would have only grown more antagonistic to the Gospel. It doesn’t matter how uncomfortable we feel or how repulsed we may be, we are commanded to love – and to truly love ain’t easy!
In this example, the parents never violated their strong belief that the relationship between their son and his partner was not acceptable before God, yet they decided to love them both. Again, there was no mistaking that they did not approve of the relationship. What can be done in the face of God-ordained compassion and love for another, even an enemy, even someone so caught up in sin and rebellion? God is given a place to move and woe and convict and work. If all we do is rebel and yell and sue and break vows, where is the integrity in any of that?
There are no easy answers to the crisis of faith in TEC, or the crisis of American Christianity in general. Easy-believism and hyper-individualism and self-righteous indignation and the demanding of “rights” is getting us no where but further away from God and further from being a saving witness to a confused and hurting world.
Thanks, Bob+. My questions were serious, and I appreciate your treating them as such. I don’t disagree with anything you have said or with your examples. Struggle is to find that place in the midst of conflict and disbelief to allow the Lord manuevering room, especially when you see yourself as the only one who wants to make that manuevering room available to Him. But perhaps I am wrong, n’est ce pas?
My opinion is that you are right, Billy. But, yes, I could be wrong, too.
Bob #15,
[blockquote]We have the obligation of being witness to the Way of Christ[/blockquote]
As I said, when there were money changers in the synagogue, Christ threw them out in an overt way. Christ did not tolerate blatant sinfulness in His Father’s house and in following his example, neither should we. That [i]is[/i] being a witness to the uncompromising Truth that our faith is grounded in.
[blockquote]Outsides often see things for what they really are because they have no “dog in the hunt.†“They will know us…†how?[/blockquote]
Yes, they will know us by our love. What does love mean? God loves us, and yet he rebukes and chastises us. Loving your children means punishing them when they act out. Love absolutely does not mean tolerate whatever anyone wants to do–God loves us absolutely and absolutely does not tolerate our sinfulness. If our “love” is merely an anything goes all is accepted attitude they will know us to be a unitarian-like creed without the changing power of the gospels on our side. Loving someone is showing them the whole truth who is Truth.
[blockquote]How we love – and this isn’t sentimentality, but terribly difficult and “giving up of self†kinds of attitudes and actions.[/blockquote]
I might point out here that excommunication is commanded in certain situations in Holy Scripture which is given to us by a loving God. We are the body of Christ and when our hand causes us to sin we are told to cut it off. Christ comes to divide and on top of that Christ let us know that our message would anger the “outsiders” enough that they will kill us. This is a radical faith and a radical message and it shouldn’t sit well with outsiders. When we stand for the Truth we show the “outsider” what he really needs and deep down desires to see, that there is an absolute standard for Truth and that there are people willing to fight for that Truth, and that the Truth will set him free if he will only turn his life over to Him.
[blockquote]Attempting to look in as an “outsider,†attempting to understand how the unchurched and possible seekers might see all this and the affect on them, I don’t believe the actions of the two different groups (TEC or the dioceses attempting to leave) are fundamentally any different, except by way of the trajectory from which they come.[/blockquote]
By the same token you could argue that the heretics in church history shouldn’t have been labelled heretics–that the church fathers should have left well enough alone in the name of “love”. When heresies grow up in the church it’s time to make the tough decisions and do what needs to be done. Watering down the gospel does not show love to those outsiders who desperately need to hear the Truth, it gives them a half truth that doesn’t satisfy.
John (#22), you wrote: “By the same token you could argue that the heretics in church history shouldn’t have been labelled heretics–that the church fathers should have left well enough alone in the name of ‘love.'”
No, John, that is not what I’m saying.
RE: “And, what we decide to fight over is unimportant to their questions or concerns. All this stuff does impact their view of the Church and Christians and their willingness to give a listen to what we try to say about Christ and the Christian life.”
I disagree with your assertions. I have spoken with unchurched people who care immensely about what we are fighting over. One unchurched female who is sexually active and has no intentions of following a Christian ethos in her relationships burst out with “but why don’t ya’ll just follow the Bible like you say you do?”
I — of course — agreed with her.
So again — I entirely disagree with your assertions. I think pagans are perfectly capable of coming to the conclusions that TEC is entirely different from other Christian churches they are familiar with. And while they have issues with Christian churches in general — they see TEC in a special category.
I’m relieved over that.
Billy — I note that Bob G’s response to your question — his comment #19 — was the usual mash of canards and boilerplate from the left about how wrong the conservative side is, ie, vows being “violated,” and bishops or clergy not acting “with integrity and in charity” when they resist the agenda of TEC and fight for their property and are true to their vows.
Of course — I’ve just used the worldview of the conservative wing in my rhetoric — but then, I didn’t mouth all of those pious platitudes about “those who are hell-bent on believing either view exclusively” or “anger and bitterness” or “self-righteousness” or actions that are “petty, childish, hypocritical, and otherwise anything but Christian.” ; > )
I guess that Bob G’s idea of “abiding by the notion that “they will know them by their love” means conservatives leave quietly, with no fuss.
Thank God that has not occurred and that people have not bought Bob G’s notions of “love” and “Christian example.”
Sarah – You are free to disagree. My experience in higher education for over 20 years with students and staff anecdotally confirms what I read in the research, which I touched on above. Argue with the research, if you must. But, why do you keep bring up whether non-Christians are “capable” or not? I never said they are not capable, only that the research shows that a whole lot of people are either uninterested or completed turned off to the Gospel because of the way Christians act – hypocritically not living up to what our own standards or the standards so many of us demand of the world. They are right. We destroy our witness by acting so unchristian, and we defame the Gospel of Christ – conservative and liberal.
Related to Billy and what you wrote – Billy asked me a question and I answered. I read it as an honest question, and I responded with two examples of how I think we can respond and act in manners that exemplify the very real different way Jesus calls us to be and to act as His followers. No canard. I pray God lifts that chip off your shoulder. I have and by God’s grace will continue to respond to people with whom I have tremendous disagreements in such a way. Many have responded in this manner to their credit, rather than capitulating to American, crass political culture.
I know how much you want to believe that I what I wrote is from the “left.” It isn’t, and I’m not. I made vows before Almighty God. If more married people took their wedding vows as soberly there wouldn’t be nearly 45-50% of all marriages failing.
Sarah, if you read what I actually wrote rather than responding with a knee-jerk reaction, I wrote of the attitudes and actions of both liberal and conservative groups alike. The extremes on the left and right are acting exactly the same way, except that they come to loggerheads from different theological or political corners and focus on different points.
I by no means want conservatives to leave or to be quite or to stop advocating for their positions, just like I do want liberals to stop attempting to unilaterally impose their positions, but if conservatives can do nothing but leave, then leave with integrity as a follower of Christ. Do not be like the liberals.
I am so thankful that my savior responds to my sinfulness and failings in such a manner that you mock in your final paragraph. Knowing God – His forgiveness, His patience, His love, mercy, grace, and long suffering with my all too human self – how can I not respond in such manner with people around me. “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.” God will surely call to account all of us and it will be shown that we all failed miserably – liberal and conservative alike – but it is only by His grace that I have any hope of standing. How can I not extend the same, as much as I am humanly able, to someone else – even my perceived enemy?
RE: “Sarah – You are free to disagree.”
Yes indeed.
RE: “My experience in higher education for over 20 years with students and staff . . . ”
My experience in the corporate world, particularly in IT and advertising, with Gen-Xers, of which I am one, anecdotally confirms what I read in the research.
RE: “Argue with the research, if you must.”
Heh.
No, Bob G — I’m asserting that [i]you yourself[/i] are wrong. The research is right as far as I can see.
But as I said earlier, I and you disagree based on our differing worldviews ultimately.
RE: “I responded with two examples of how I think we can respond and act in manners that exemplify the very real different way Jesus calls us to be and to act as His followers. . . . ”
And one of those examples was for conservatives to do as revisionists in TEC desire them to do when they depart. Sweet!
; > )
RE: “I pray God lifts that chip off your shoulder.”
Lol.
And I do solemnly pray [insert stained glass voice here] that you come to realize just how wrong you are. And I do pray fervently that you stop beating your wife. And lighting the tails of small kittens on fire. ; > )
RE: “I know how much you want to believe that I what I wrote is from the “left.†It isn’t, and I’m not.”
Of course you are. You support “full inclusion” of non-celibate gays. You’ve been clear about that in your comments at T19 and elsewhere, besides proudly stating that you’re more “affirming catholic.” We all know, thankfully, what that is so it’s a little late to be claiming you’re not a revisionist.
My pointing out that you’ve intoned in grand statements that we all should not be self-righteous on both sides, and then your turning around and saying “conservatives who leave TEC should do what we revisionists want them to do” is merely my taking a clear-eyed and amused look at how you behave on threads.
“When you leave — don’t do so with a fuss, good people. Do as we would like for you to do, accepting our statements about TEC, 815, dioceses, our property [ahem], whether dioceses can leave or not, the canons, the vows, etc, etc. Er . . . . ‘leave with integrity as a follower of Christ.’ Yes, quite. As we would wish for you to do. And we will pray for you. But remember . . . ‘leave with integrity as a follower of Christ'”.
RE: “I am so thankful that my savior responds to my sinfulness and failings in such a manner that you mock in your final paragraph.”
No fear, Bob G — I was not mocking the manner in which God responds at all. Merely your own self-serving definitions of “love” and “Christian example.”
Sarah – I’m a GenX’er, too, by the way. I worked in IT for 8 years (although in a university and not in the cooperate world). I currently work as a data analyst in a financial services company with GenY, GenX, and Baby Boomers. I still recommend to you “unChristian” if you haven’t read it (and other books detailing the attitudes and desires of younger generations). I don’t know whether you are familiar with Barna Research, but they are an Evangelical outfit.
You continue to misread or misinterpret what I write. I’m sorry for that. If you are unwilling to set back for a moment and consider that you are doing this, there really isn’t much I can do. I sense in your writing a great deal of mistrust and bitterness, which I regret. I could be misreading you, too, I realize.
What if the Fort Worth scenario went something like this:
Beginning Sunday, January 4th (or whatever date) the keys were left on the desks, letters of resignations from Vestries and of Holy Orders where sent to 815 en mass (and picked up by the Southern Cone), offices and churches were empty of people, phone calls went unanswered, mail piled up, bills went unpaid, the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth suddenly became an entity on paper and with a bunch of bricks and candles, but with hardly any people. The faithful could have re-assembled en mass in new places and as a new entity unencumbered by the old. The integrity of the people of Fort Worth would have been maintained above question or accusation, and the vows of the clergy would have been maintained. They really would have been free of 815 and TEC, but now they still are not.
Suddenly, 815 would be responsible to banks, lenders, utility companies, etc., and they would have a bunch of old buildings that they cannot afford to kept up or populate. They would have to scramble to formulate some sort of organization. 815’s coffers would be drained all the more quickly, they were be held responsible by the courts, the media or PR impact would have been far greater because this would have been something very unique and dramatic, and 815 functionaries would be without recourse regarding the courts or the Canons. The revisionists would have been stymied. No recourse. They could have done nothing!
People would look around and ask, “Where have all the people gone?” Oh, they have gone to the “desert!”
The way things have played out, however, the leadership and people of the former Episcopal Church diocese will be encumbered by legal actions and old systems and the ire of 815. They will not be free of 815 or revisionists, as they want to be. Their own time and money will be drained by the continuing fight with 815. More than likely, in the end they will lose in the secular courts. And more significantly, the bitterness, frustration, anxiety, and animus of the faithful will only increase. And for what? – buildings, mammon, things that do not add one bit to one’s salvation for peace before God. Things that would only hinder TEC even more.
In addition, and this is what really saddens me, the leadership of Fort Worth (and the other dioceses) by their actions give the revisionists the victory. The way the leadership has chartered the course and by their actions they have only played into the expectations and stereotypes of the revisionists. Now, there are left in TEC far fewer if any Anglo-Catholics, Charismatic-Evangelicals, people who fight for a Biblical faith, and the desire of a good many revisionists is fulfilled – all “those” people are finally gone! The revisionists have won. 815 doesn’t have the “troublemakers” holding them back any longer.
The good fight is never easy and is always full of cross-bearing and hardship. Standing up for the Gospel will lead to persecution – that is the lot of followers of Christ. The victory is won by God alone, and never by our all too human actions.
I truly did not want them to leave. Truly.
RE: “Their own time and money will be drained by the continuing fight with 815.”
Worth every penny in my opinion. I’m thrilled they’re fighting 815.
RE: “More than likely, in the end they will lose in the secular courts.”
Could be. But they won’t know until they move through the appropriate processes in the secular courts, where they can depend on justice and an objective look at the law, unlike with TEC.
RE: “And more significantly, the bitterness, frustration, anxiety, and animus of the faithful will only increase.”
How’s that? I feel great, personally, and I haven’t noticed an increase in frustration, anxiety, and animus in the faithful. They probably have some bitterness, but that would have occurred anyway, given 815’s agenda and behavior.
RE: “In addition, and this is what really saddens me, the leadership of Fort Worth (and the other dioceses) by their actions give the revisionists the victory.”
Nonsense. You guys have had the “victory” in your taking over the instruments of political power: the HOD, the HOB, Executive Council, and the PB. Nothing that Fort Worth has done has added an ounce to that already victory.
RE: “The way the leadership has chartered the course and by their actions they have only played into the expectations and stereotypes of the revisionists.”
One really can’t make good decisions about whether one is “playing into expectations” of whomever. One should merely do what one believes is right, and I’m confident that Iker, et al, have done so.
RE: “Now, there are left in TEC far fewer if any Anglo-Catholics, Charismatic-Evangelicals, people who fight for a Biblical faith,
. . .
Very true. Such is life.
RE: “The revisionists have won. 815 doesn’t have the “troublemakers†holding them back any longer.”
You guys had already won the church takeover. The “troublemakers” weren’t holding anything back at all!
Unless you call the actions of GC 2003 a “holding back.”
RE: “I truly did not want them to leave.”
I’m sure you didn’t.
Sarah – Don’t see the Church within a time frame of a year, six years, 30 years, or even a life time. This is one thing I noticed when I became an Anglican from American-Evangelicalism: time is on God’s side. Coming into Anglicanism, I saw the Church over eons, not just my lifetime, not just within the cultural immediacy and trendiness of my Evangelical/Charismatic upbringing. I realized that the Church as an institution (or multiple institutions) waxes and wains, has times of shallowness and times of great brilliance, times of horrific persecution and times of heroic rescue, times of error and times of correction. God still patiently controls, however, and guides and loving corrects. The slow patience of Tradition – that which survives over time among many cultures – is trustworthy.
But, we are in the midst of it all. We aren’t standing outside the process looking in. In fifty years, when Christians look back upon this time (perhaps even us, depending on heathcare), we will see what has really gone on. Hindsight reveals many things that are impossible to see or recognize at the moment.
If we want God’s Truth, with a capital “T,” we must understand that were we are right now, right here, in our lifetimes, that we can get it all wrong. We are not capable to judging completely or even accurately what God is doing. “Being made into the image of Christ,” takes a lifetime and there will be plenty of times within those years that we personally get it all wrong. God works. He can do whatever He wants to do, regardless of whether we like it or not. I have faith in God, in His Word, in His Tradition, in the eventual ability of the Body of Christ to hear and listen to God’s still small voice. I could be profoundly wrong. You could be profoundly wrong. It will be revealed, in time.
50 years from know, we will know whether God is leading us into a clearer understanding of His Word or whether we have a bunch of people trying to push a socio-political agenda upon us. In the mean time, how we act will determine a whole lot of things.
By the way, you can insist that I’m “one of them” if you want. I’m not. I disagree with much of what TEC leadership is doing. My salvation is in the hands of God, alone.
RE: “Don’t see the Church within a time frame of a year, six years, 30 years, or even a life time.”
Not certain why you think I am doing so. I certainly am not. The Church will remain, steadfast and ultimately triumphant.
I’m just relieved that it appears that the current rulers of TEC won’t be triumphant ultimately. And believe you me, that’s the long view.
RE: “In fifty years, when Christians look back upon this time (perhaps even us, depending on heathcare), we will see what has really gone on.”
I completely agree. We won’t know if the ACNA is successful, we won’t know if the Anglican Communion ultimately divides, we won’t know how many more people TEC will have lost, we won’t know any number of things. Thankfully, though, God’s word written reveals enough things that are right and wrong for us to make good solid decisions about ethics and moral practice, as well as basic Christian theology.
RE: “50 years from know, we will know whether God is leading us into a clearer understanding of His Word or whether we have a bunch of people trying to push a socio-political agenda upon us.”
Lol.
No need for me to wait 50 years for that. But you nicely demonstrate — as you have over the past scores of comments on this blog — that you’re a revisionist for this thread to see. And just think — you’ve added yet another comment to the many.
; > )
No, 50 years from know, we may know what the results for TEC and the Anglican Communion were of a bunch of people like you trying to push a socio-political agenda upon us. In the meantime, I certainly agree that how we act will determine a whole lot of things.
That’s why I’m so thankful at the actions, so far, of Iker et al, as well as those of conservative leaders like Kendall Harmon inside TEC, doing their best to get the word out about the corrupt heresies and non-canonical actions of the leaders of TEC.
Doing right is far more important in the end.
RE: “By the way, you can insist that I’m “one of them†if you want.”
I certainly can.
And thankfully, we have scads of comments from you on this blog about gay inclusion to nicely demonstrate it.
And now we have one more about Biblical authority — which I’ll save, just for the future, BobG, when you talk about how traditional you are and how conservative laypeople have such odd “mistrust” of folks like you.
Can’t imagine why we wouldn’t trust fine honest clergy like you. Why on earth laypeople would ever think that clergy who are actually revisionists but claim to be traditional are actually propagating scams is beyond me.
To everyone – For the sake of any of you who may be keeping up with this thread and haven’t read my past comments Sarah may be referring to, and despite the assurances from her that what I say is probably not trustworthy, please know this:
– I say the Creeds without hesitation and without reinterpretation.
– I hold to a high-view of Scripture and its utter trustworthiness concerning all things necessary for salvation. It is God’s Word written, our authority. As Anglicans, we understand that the Tradition and reason aid us in rightly dividing the Word of God.
– I’ve detailed within this blog repeatedly my belief in the divinity of and the uniqueness of Jesus as God’s means of salvation, and of our utter need of it. There is no name under heaven that we are saved.
As an example of Sarah’s propensity to read into or misunderstand what I’ve written, consider her above comments (#30) on my statement that in 50 years we will have a much clear view concerning what we are going through right now and why. She considers my statement to be yet another example of why I’m a revisionist, in her mind – another arrow in her quiver of accusation against my orthodoxy.
The statement was as factual and neutral as one can get. In 50 years, we will know more and see more clearly. There is no assertion of what I think the outcome will be, yet she presumes one. From 1959 until now, we can look back on the ordination of women issue and realize that we have a far clearer understanding of the issues and what has taken place within the Church. That’s hindsight. Quite orthodox people still hold completely opposite views – Duncan and Ike, for example. ( Unless, of course, you want to assert that Bishop Duncan is heretic because he believes in the ordination of women.) We see more clearly now than we did 50 years ago.
If people of either the liberal or the conservative side of Anglicanism cannot give honest consideration to what people claim to believe without calling each other either ignorant fools or heretics out of hand, then no one wins anything other then continued division of Christ’s Body and being a very poor witness.
The Reformed Episcopal Church split over what they perceived to be the growing “Popish” ways of PECUSA. They were absolutely convinced that they were right, the rest of the Church was dead wrong and endangering people’s salvation. God has not prospered the REC, for whatever reason, despite their high hopes and great enthusiasm in the beginning. Will the same outcome be realized of the new North American Church? In 50 years, we will know. What will ultimately happen to TEC? In 50 years, we will know. Woman’s ordination? The gay issue? In 50 years, we will know far more than we do now.
There may be, say, 14% of Episcopalians (or now former Episcopalians) on either side of the divide that are ardent – 7% conservatives and 7% liberals. Both sides have already lost in the long run, but right now they are pulling the Church apart, each laying every bit of the blame on the other side without ever recognizing their own culpability. In hindsight, I suspect neither side, neither 5%, will be regarded as triumphant or right.
RE: “consider her above comments (#30) on my statement that in 50 years we will have a much clear view concerning what we are going through right now and why. . . . ”
Actually, I’m quite confident that the readers of this thread will consider [i]what Bob G+ actually said[/i] which was “50 years from know, we will know whether God is leading us into a clearer understanding of His Word or whether we have a bunch of people trying to push a socio-political agenda upon us” — rather different from “in 50 years we will have a much clear view concerning what we are going through right now and why.”
; > )
But thankfully, the thread is here. Everyone can read it for themselves — and then see Bob G’s attempts to claim that he’s not a revisionist. Thankfully people can also pull up other comments on other threads by Bob G in which he’s quite clear that he’s for gay inclusion.
In this particular thread he gave himself away — yet again — as a supporter of gay inclusion and as a guy who has decided that God’s word written — both the OT and the NT being crispily clear about same-gender sex — should not apply to his “reason.”
And what a nice list of “orthodox things” he provides — while trying to throw people off the scent of Bob G 1) being for gay inclusion, 2) deciding that the clear mandates of God’s word against same-gender sexual activities get to be reasoned away, and 3) trying to claim all the while that he’s traditional and not revisionist.
Thankfully this thread — and other threads of Bob G’s — stands on their own. And now . . . he’s added yet another comment trying desperately to spin his comment #29.
Priceless.
God will judge and decide our fates, as it has always been. In hindsight we will know more fully and better understand God’s will. Thank God for His patience with us – all of us. Sarah, my prayer is for your soul and that God’s will will be done within you and through you.
As I’ve said in the past, after consideration of the opinions on both sides of the issue, I think there is warrant for reconsideration of the way the Church has traditionally understood and strung together the 5 or so verses in Leviticus, Paul’s letters to the Romans, Corinthians, and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Were we go from here or the final outcome, the Church will decide through the moving of the Holy Spirit. God’s Truth will be maintained, as it always has been, and as it will continue to be.