Since I am the only person indicated by this statement (despite the use of the plural “leader(s)”, let me respond briefly, in hopes that someone from the Consultation is reading. The Consultation’s statement is, taken as a whole, completely disingenuous. Since I have been long and ublicly committed to the view that partenered homosexuals should not, on Scriptural, traditional, and moral reasons, be ordained or have their partnerships affirmed by the Christian Church, my commitments have always been, in the Consultation’s view, “sinful”. This is not news to the Constulation members, and brings no revelatory instruments to bear in their reading of the CP Bishops’ statement. But it really has nothing to do with the Anglican Covenant. This is logical hooey, and at best an indirect form of ad hominem diversion. The various drafts of the Covenant have had nothing to do with the issues of sexuality (much to the chagrin of some), and the Consultors know it. If the “full intent of the documents” is based not on their content, however, but on the people involved in drafting them, then the the Consultors are rather slow in figuring out what is going on. After all, about half of the Covenant Design Group shares my “sinful” perspective and has shared it long before the Covenant was even a gleam in Canterbury’s eye.
If the church, even out of pity and a desire for justice, affirms sin and behaviors that harm and leave people in spiritual bondage, she would be a cruel institution indeed and betray her mandate to bring people out of captivity to sin and death, to heal the broken and broken-hearted and to be vehicle of Christ’s redemption. Some have taken the easy path of affirming sin rather than insisting it be crucified, but they are entering into sin themselves and it will be a thorn in their side. Romans 1:32; Numbers 33:55-56
Kendall, I’m glad you highlighted Dr. Radner’s response to an earlier thread devoted to the Chicago Consultation’s ridiculous reaction to the CP Bishops/ACI Statement on the Polity of TEC. It deserved more prominence.
Fr. Radner’s angry dismissal of the criticism leveled at him by the Consultation as completely disingenuous” and mere “hooey” was entirely justified. In fact, I’d say his sharp retort was rather mild and understated. I would’ve used considerably stronger language in denouncing such an outrageous personal attack.
I have no respect for the Chicago Consultation. None at all.
David Handy+
Why is it that when the 15 Bishops, et al devise ways to remain in TEC by looking for the much vaunted BIG TENT (bragged on unconvincingly by liberals) that they are viewed as schismatics? The TEC MAFIA-types like the “Chicago Consultation” (read overly indulged whiners), Mark Harris, Jim Naughton, and Susan Russell rush to hammer out blogs villifying these persons and to find sinister motives behind private e-mails and declarations of loyalty.
Folks: It’s not about “via media” (often misused to read as permission to be any/everything), nor about the “Big Tent”, or room for all. It’s about the liberal mafia of TEC demanding capitulation or expulsion. Those who continue to want to suffer these impetuous and selfish people had better be ready for this and worse.
Fr. Handy,
One must remember that Fr. Radner’s response was most likely toned down in the thread with the sensibilities of the Elves specifically and T1:9 audience in general. Were he to respond via letter to the Chicago Consultation’s speaker, perhaps he may have used stronger language.
In His Peace,
Jim Elliott <><
This is all rather petty when you look at the behind scenes viciousness with which TEC goes after conservatives who have left the church. TEC is a evil monster out to destroy anything in the way of its agenda. My advice, hide under your beds.
An essay on Unanswered Questions related to the posting of private emails can now be seen at anglicancommunioninstitute.com — CRS.
I would dearly love to see those questions honestly answered, CRS.
As offensive as the publishing of these e-mail’s is as a straight up ethical issue, it is the total disregard for the possible harm it could have caused a good priest in a very hostile liberal diocese that really offended me.
No matter one’s position on an issue, causing personal harm is simply not an acceptable tactic to be used by Christians in a debate.
The priest outed in this case was put at real risk as his thoughts about alternative oversight were revealed to a decidedly mean spirited bishop. This poor guy is apparently the last guy standing in the way of his bishop’s total homo-sexualization of the diocese. I would imagine his is now under careful scrutiny at this point, and pretty much taken out of the fight.
It is also true, and sad to say, that this is the least of the down and dirty sorts of things the TEC agenda managers are up to these days. Threats, extortion, abuse of process, personal lawsuits against vestry members and clergy are daily weapons used against conservatives. Much of this is never posted on this fairly sanitized web site, but its happening.
This theological genocide going on in TEC has the same root cause Dr. Turner has pointed out time and again, the failure of bishops to exercise authority. That the Lilleybridges and Stantons refuse to insist on putting boundaries on the viciousness of their fellow bishops is the real problem in our church.
Unless our bishops begin to assert some self restraint and discipline among themselves, unless they begin to name unchristian behavior in their ranks, posting private e-mails will be just one of many destructive behaviors perpetrated against those who resist the liberal agenda in our church.
#8 —
so what “threats” and “extortions” can you give us as examples, if they are so frequent-yet-hidden? and theological genocide? please. by the way, those vestry members and clergy you mentioned: they are being sued for failing to execute faithfully their fiduciary responsibilities as stewards. that’s what happens when you spend money that isn’t yours but is held in trust — just ask any court who has ruled on the matter.
YoungAdult–sounds like you already know the answer given your specificity concerning why people are being sued, so why don’t you tell us who that is about whom you have rendered your verdict.
It seems rather sad to me that the Chicago Consultation would attack Ephraim Radner who is generally unappreciated, grossly overworked and patiently long suffering in his loyalty. His contributions to Anglicanism deserve better than this.