Father Stockton reveals liberal arrogance and rightousness in all its glory. There is only one side and argument and it is his. The conservative neanderthals can either accept it or get out. At least his point of view is clear. As was Lenin and Stalin.
When I read things like this I remain puzzled as to why those with Rev. Stockton’s POV in TEC want to remain in the Anglican Communion? I don’t mean to be snarky at all — I just can’t fathom why they don’t withdraw from the Communion and become a singularly American denomination, perhaps with some missionary ties? They eschew input from the primates, particularly those who don’t agree with them; they regularly tell the ABC to “butt out;” they find a covenant wrong-headed and somehow oppressive; and they seem to find no value in worldwide Anglicanism when it doesn’t serve their purposes.
The whole bit about ordination not having wider implications outside of TEC really had me shaking my head. This view, if prevalent in TEC, reduces TEC to a self-centered, liberal philanthropic/activist organization with rituals.
#2, if I read Stockton’s comments on the HoB/D list correctly, he has no particular interest in the Anglican Communion as an ecclesial body with [i] any [/i] kind of mutuality or interdependence.
While I commend Jeremy Bonner for a valiant effort at maintaining open lines of communication and for turning the other cheek and not returning rhetorical fire-bombs that Fr. Stockton lobbed his way, I fail to see what good can come from such an exchange of opinions. There is simply no way to bridge tha immense gap between the two ideologically (or better put, theologically).
When I find myself in “conversation” with liberals of Fr. Stockton’s ilk, I admit that I usually don’t display Jeremy’s patience, for experience has proven that it’s just a huge waste of time and effort. For despite all their talk about the importance of the vaunted “Listening Process,” most hardcore liberals that I’ve met are singularly uninterested in really listening to hardcore conservatives like me, who passionately and stubbornly oppose their agenda.
Trying to build a bridge across that gap is as futile as trying to build a bridge over the Grand Canyon. Or maybe even the Atlantic Ocean. Or maybe even across the vast, empty distances of outer space, say between Earth and Venus or Mars. For Fr. Stockton and I do seem to live on different planets, or even in different religious universes. Our CORE values are incompatible, and being core values, they aren’t negotiable.
As Jesus said, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” Or as I like to say around here: Oil and water simply don’t mix. They are doomed to separate.
4, as the exchange makes clear Fr. Stockton views us as the enemy. An enemy to be defeated at all costs. It is also clear that any provision to be made for the orthodox is tactical only and will last until the gains can be consolodated as his comments about WO make clear.
While it’s obviously a boost for one’s self esteem to be featured on T19, I didn’t post the conversation with any particular object (except the historian’s interest in comprehending both sides).
Nor do I necessarily expect any good to come from it; on the other hand, you never know. Perhaps a conversation where one doesn’t respond in kind (which we all know is rare on Stand Firm and sometimes takes a beating even over here) may help shift us to a place where we can more quickly “move on.” We will continue to exist as two expressions of the Anglican ethos in the United States for a while at least and I imagine many of us would prefer it to be with a minimum of bitterness.
That said, I think Br Michael (#5) is right as far as Fr. Stockton is concerned. I brought our conversation to a close (by not replying except to ask permission to post) largely because I felt I could go no further with any profit. As far as the observations of Teatime (#2) and Bruce (#3) are concerned, I get the sense that Fr. Stockton would have no difficulty with a solely American denominational status, but then we’ve heard similarly mutterings about the Communion from federal conservatives also.
And don’t let’s be complacent here. There are plenty of us with our own complexes, our own assurance of institutional infallibility and despite David’s expressed conviction that the post-Constantinean settlement is aborning, I remain to be convinced that we have shed all our institutional convictions. We may not wish to be a state church (especially with the decline of the Protestant consensus), but the institutionalist mentality endures, not least in the person of your favorite North American primate and my diocesan.
#5 Jeremy Bonner,
But a federalist conservative still recognizes that when one is ordained, it is into a much wider church than TEC, which is why the flurry to inhibit those who have left TEC in favor of the Southern Cone or other Anglican body has caused such amusement. There is much irony in all of this — the group that doesn’t want to put God “in a very small box” has no qualms about doing so institutionally with the Church! And this same group that insists the Communion is nothing more than a VERY loosely connected group of national churches that may nod at Canterbury when it suits them had a conniption over the ACI correspondence (that was leaked) in which TEC was described as a federation of rather independent dioceses. Heh.
I’m glad you chimed in here. I hope you didn’t take my comment as a criticism when I said that I could see little or no good coming from engaging in an extended email exchange with someone like Fr. Stockton of Austin, for it wasn’t intended as a complaint or criticism. More as a lament. I admire your tenacity and forbearance in dealing with extreme liberals of his obnoxious sort.
And just so there’s no misunderstanding, when I issue my perpetual calls for a radically countercultural, Post-Christendom style Anglicanism, I’m not stating what I think is already the case (in descriptive mode), but I’m acting as a partisan advocate for what I think should and MUST be the case in the future for Anglicanism to thrive once again in the third millenium, at least in the heavily de-Christianized Global North (i.e., acting prescriptively).
So I have no problem admitting that you’re quite right in saying that “an institutionalist mentality endures” even in places like the ex-TEC Diocese of Pittsburgh. But at the same time, I do believe that a New Reformation is already underway, and starting to pick up momentum. Its consequences and outcome are still highly uncertain, of course, but I have high hopes that it will prove nothing less than revolutionary and immensely beneficial in reviving the vitality of the Church and correcting many of its worst abuses. Even as the original Protestant Reformation of the 16th century did.
And referring to your diocesan, +Bob Duncan the Lion-Hearted, as my “favorite North American [b] primate [/b],” well, I certainly like the sound of that. In less than three weeks, when the Constitution and Canons of the new ACNA are approved in Ft. Worth, I think he can indeed be properly called a primate (although of course not yet a primate of the AC).
And now that this week I’ve asked +Bill Love in Albany for a Letter Dimissory to transfer to the ACNA (and to the new Diocese of the Holy Spirit under +John Guernsey), your bishop will soon be not only my favorite North American primate, I’ll be able to happily and truly that he’s [i] my [/i] primate.
Oops, left out a key word in that last sentence. What I meant naturally was that I’ll be able to say happily and truly that ++Duncan is [b] my [/b] primate.
I wholeheartedly agree that with regards to property there will be winners and losers. One party own the property and the courts will decide who that is, state by state by state. I think more fascinating is the entire exchange, and greatly appreciate — yet again and from yet another progressive activist Episcopalian — the clear demonstration of the fact that there are two mutually opposing gospels in one organization. One cannot, of course, read someone like Stockton’s comments without recognizing what that gospel is and how utterly antithetical it is to the Gospel.
Being called a bigot by somebody like him is a true compliment.
RE: “When I read things like this I remain puzzled as to why those with Rev. Stockton’s POV in TEC want to remain in the Anglican Communion?”
Teatime, I think the progressive activists understand that they have little chance to sow their gospel in other provinces without the credibility of belonging to the worldwide Anglican Communion.
They know that they need to belong to that body, in order to use it as they used TEC — as a host.
Like Teatime, I just wish that the progressives in TEC had the true courage of their convictions, and would (graciously) opt to “walk apart” from the AC. But, as Sarah suggests, this would deprive them of a host to parasitize, and deprive the Anglocentric hierarchy of the AC its largest source of funding.
And so we have the ongoing schizophrenia of the North American minority insisting on their autonomy and prerogative to rend the fabric of communion to shreds, while at the same time loudly insisting that they ARE Anglican, and the only legitimate standard bearers for Anglicanism here.
One thing that I can say about Father Stockton is that he follows his convictions. That’s what my family and I found out when we visited the parish under his care, shortly after he arrived in Austin.
You see, my family and I are Black. You cannot imagine a warmer or friendlier welcome, than the one that we received. That parish was the model of Christian love and acceptance. They seemed to be so happy and thrilled for us to have visited.
But, as soon as they found out that, although “Black”, we happened to have a more traditional understanding of the inspiration and authority of the Holy Scriptures; Father Stockton made it abundantly clear that he viewed “gay rights in the Church” as a “social justice issue”. We appreciated his honesty.
We did not return. We wish him well, and do pray for him – from time to time. But, we do wish that he and others, in his camp, would drop the “gay”, “Black†similarity argument. It is false!
Yes, we are “Black”. But, our Blackness is not a behavior – it’s not something that we do! God has never indicated that being “Black” is a sin, or that it would disqualify us from entrance into His eternal Kingdom. In fact, it is quite the opposite – the Scriptures indicate that God welcomes people from every nation, tribe and tongue into The Kingdom of Heaven. God will freely accept all who turn away from sin toward Him, through faith in Jesus Christ.
We find it hurtful and demeaning to have our ethnic background placed on par with a behavior – and one specifically described by the Bible as sinful. Those on both sides of the issue are free to make all kinds of linguistic, cultural, historically or Biblical arguments for their respective positions. But, we sure wish that they would leave race out of it!
My former rector, Richard Martin, had the misfortune to be a black traditionalist Anglo Catholic priest in a very divided parish in the Diocese of Washington. Needless to say, he was not popular with the powers that be.
Father Stockton reveals liberal arrogance and rightousness in all its glory. There is only one side and argument and it is his. The conservative neanderthals can either accept it or get out. At least his point of view is clear. As was Lenin and Stalin.
When I read things like this I remain puzzled as to why those with Rev. Stockton’s POV in TEC want to remain in the Anglican Communion? I don’t mean to be snarky at all — I just can’t fathom why they don’t withdraw from the Communion and become a singularly American denomination, perhaps with some missionary ties? They eschew input from the primates, particularly those who don’t agree with them; they regularly tell the ABC to “butt out;” they find a covenant wrong-headed and somehow oppressive; and they seem to find no value in worldwide Anglicanism when it doesn’t serve their purposes.
The whole bit about ordination not having wider implications outside of TEC really had me shaking my head. This view, if prevalent in TEC, reduces TEC to a self-centered, liberal philanthropic/activist organization with rituals.
#2, if I read Stockton’s comments on the HoB/D list correctly, he has no particular interest in the Anglican Communion as an ecclesial body with [i] any [/i] kind of mutuality or interdependence.
Bruce Robison
While I commend Jeremy Bonner for a valiant effort at maintaining open lines of communication and for turning the other cheek and not returning rhetorical fire-bombs that Fr. Stockton lobbed his way, I fail to see what good can come from such an exchange of opinions. There is simply no way to bridge tha immense gap between the two ideologically (or better put, theologically).
When I find myself in “conversation” with liberals of Fr. Stockton’s ilk, I admit that I usually don’t display Jeremy’s patience, for experience has proven that it’s just a huge waste of time and effort. For despite all their talk about the importance of the vaunted “Listening Process,” most hardcore liberals that I’ve met are singularly uninterested in really listening to hardcore conservatives like me, who passionately and stubbornly oppose their agenda.
Trying to build a bridge across that gap is as futile as trying to build a bridge over the Grand Canyon. Or maybe even the Atlantic Ocean. Or maybe even across the vast, empty distances of outer space, say between Earth and Venus or Mars. For Fr. Stockton and I do seem to live on different planets, or even in different religious universes. Our CORE values are incompatible, and being core values, they aren’t negotiable.
As Jesus said, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” Or as I like to say around here: Oil and water simply don’t mix. They are doomed to separate.
And “It is meet and right” for them so to do.
David Handy+
4, as the exchange makes clear Fr. Stockton views us as the enemy. An enemy to be defeated at all costs. It is also clear that any provision to be made for the orthodox is tactical only and will last until the gains can be consolodated as his comments about WO make clear.
David (#4),
While it’s obviously a boost for one’s self esteem to be featured on T19, I didn’t post the conversation with any particular object (except the historian’s interest in comprehending both sides).
Nor do I necessarily expect any good to come from it; on the other hand, you never know. Perhaps a conversation where one doesn’t respond in kind (which we all know is rare on Stand Firm and sometimes takes a beating even over here) may help shift us to a place where we can more quickly “move on.” We will continue to exist as two expressions of the Anglican ethos in the United States for a while at least and I imagine many of us would prefer it to be with a minimum of bitterness.
That said, I think Br Michael (#5) is right as far as Fr. Stockton is concerned. I brought our conversation to a close (by not replying except to ask permission to post) largely because I felt I could go no further with any profit. As far as the observations of Teatime (#2) and Bruce (#3) are concerned, I get the sense that Fr. Stockton would have no difficulty with a solely American denominational status, but then we’ve heard similarly mutterings about the Communion from federal conservatives also.
And don’t let’s be complacent here. There are plenty of us with our own complexes, our own assurance of institutional infallibility and despite David’s expressed conviction that the post-Constantinean settlement is aborning, I remain to be convinced that we have shed all our institutional convictions. We may not wish to be a state church (especially with the decline of the Protestant consensus), but the institutionalist mentality endures, not least in the person of your favorite North American primate and my diocesan.
#5 Jeremy Bonner,
But a federalist conservative still recognizes that when one is ordained, it is into a much wider church than TEC, which is why the flurry to inhibit those who have left TEC in favor of the Southern Cone or other Anglican body has caused such amusement. There is much irony in all of this — the group that doesn’t want to put God “in a very small box” has no qualms about doing so institutionally with the Church! And this same group that insists the Communion is nothing more than a VERY loosely connected group of national churches that may nod at Canterbury when it suits them had a conniption over the ACI correspondence (that was leaked) in which TEC was described as a federation of rather independent dioceses. Heh.
Jeremy (#6),
I’m glad you chimed in here. I hope you didn’t take my comment as a criticism when I said that I could see little or no good coming from engaging in an extended email exchange with someone like Fr. Stockton of Austin, for it wasn’t intended as a complaint or criticism. More as a lament. I admire your tenacity and forbearance in dealing with extreme liberals of his obnoxious sort.
And just so there’s no misunderstanding, when I issue my perpetual calls for a radically countercultural, Post-Christendom style Anglicanism, I’m not stating what I think is already the case (in descriptive mode), but I’m acting as a partisan advocate for what I think should and MUST be the case in the future for Anglicanism to thrive once again in the third millenium, at least in the heavily de-Christianized Global North (i.e., acting prescriptively).
So I have no problem admitting that you’re quite right in saying that “an institutionalist mentality endures” even in places like the ex-TEC Diocese of Pittsburgh. But at the same time, I do believe that a New Reformation is already underway, and starting to pick up momentum. Its consequences and outcome are still highly uncertain, of course, but I have high hopes that it will prove nothing less than revolutionary and immensely beneficial in reviving the vitality of the Church and correcting many of its worst abuses. Even as the original Protestant Reformation of the 16th century did.
And referring to your diocesan, +Bob Duncan the Lion-Hearted, as my “favorite North American [b] primate [/b],” well, I certainly like the sound of that. In less than three weeks, when the Constitution and Canons of the new ACNA are approved in Ft. Worth, I think he can indeed be properly called a primate (although of course not yet a primate of the AC).
And now that this week I’ve asked +Bill Love in Albany for a Letter Dimissory to transfer to the ACNA (and to the new Diocese of the Holy Spirit under +John Guernsey), your bishop will soon be not only my favorite North American primate, I’ll be able to happily and truly that he’s [i] my [/i] primate.
David Handy+
Oops, left out a key word in that last sentence. What I meant naturally was that I’ll be able to say happily and truly that ++Duncan is [b] my [/b] primate.
David Handy+
I wholeheartedly agree that with regards to property there will be winners and losers. One party own the property and the courts will decide who that is, state by state by state. I think more fascinating is the entire exchange, and greatly appreciate — yet again and from yet another progressive activist Episcopalian — the clear demonstration of the fact that there are two mutually opposing gospels in one organization. One cannot, of course, read someone like Stockton’s comments without recognizing what that gospel is and how utterly antithetical it is to the Gospel.
Being called a bigot by somebody like him is a true compliment.
RE: “When I read things like this I remain puzzled as to why those with Rev. Stockton’s POV in TEC want to remain in the Anglican Communion?”
Teatime, I think the progressive activists understand that they have little chance to sow their gospel in other provinces without the credibility of belonging to the worldwide Anglican Communion.
They know that they need to belong to that body, in order to use it as they used TEC — as a host.
Like Teatime, I just wish that the progressives in TEC had the true courage of their convictions, and would (graciously) opt to “walk apart” from the AC. But, as Sarah suggests, this would deprive them of a host to parasitize, and deprive the Anglocentric hierarchy of the AC its largest source of funding.
And so we have the ongoing schizophrenia of the North American minority insisting on their autonomy and prerogative to rend the fabric of communion to shreds, while at the same time loudly insisting that they ARE Anglican, and the only legitimate standard bearers for Anglicanism here.
One thing that I can say about Father Stockton is that he follows his convictions. That’s what my family and I found out when we visited the parish under his care, shortly after he arrived in Austin.
You see, my family and I are Black. You cannot imagine a warmer or friendlier welcome, than the one that we received. That parish was the model of Christian love and acceptance. They seemed to be so happy and thrilled for us to have visited.
But, as soon as they found out that, although “Black”, we happened to have a more traditional understanding of the inspiration and authority of the Holy Scriptures; Father Stockton made it abundantly clear that he viewed “gay rights in the Church” as a “social justice issue”. We appreciated his honesty.
We did not return. We wish him well, and do pray for him – from time to time. But, we do wish that he and others, in his camp, would drop the “gay”, “Black†similarity argument. It is false!
Yes, we are “Black”. But, our Blackness is not a behavior – it’s not something that we do! God has never indicated that being “Black” is a sin, or that it would disqualify us from entrance into His eternal Kingdom. In fact, it is quite the opposite – the Scriptures indicate that God welcomes people from every nation, tribe and tongue into The Kingdom of Heaven. God will freely accept all who turn away from sin toward Him, through faith in Jesus Christ.
We find it hurtful and demeaning to have our ethnic background placed on par with a behavior – and one specifically described by the Bible as sinful. Those on both sides of the issue are free to make all kinds of linguistic, cultural, historically or Biblical arguments for their respective positions. But, we sure wish that they would leave race out of it!
#13,
You have my sympathy.
My former rector, Richard Martin, had the misfortune to be a black traditionalist Anglo Catholic priest in a very divided parish in the Diocese of Washington. Needless to say, he was not popular with the powers that be.
It was a good effort at requesting grace be extended all sides.