Dear Brothers and Sisters,
We have reached the mid-point, and I want to give you some impressions. This is a remarkably different General Convention than any of the previous six I have attended as a Bishop. I would characterize all the previous Conventions as highly contentious. This one is not. We still have the same recurrent issues ahead of us, but the “conservative” wing is so greatly diminished that its voice is almost irrelevant.
I made that comment to one person who questioned whether I really meant it, “Irrelevant? Don’t you mean “hated?” No, there is no sense of animosity here. The conservatives state their position(s) respectfully and they are treated with respect in return. It is just that they are so hugely outnumbered that it doesn’t matter.
At the open hearings on the sexuality questions the “progressives” outnumber the “conservatives” somewhere between six and ten to one. I have been proud of the members of the Central Florida deputation entering into the debate, but often they have been nearly the only ones speaking on behalf of a “traditionalist” position. (Some of our folks have been approached and questioned by members of the “Youth Presence” that is here who seem never to have heard a “traditionalist” position articulated previously.)
All of which is to say that passage of some sort of authorization of same-sex blessings seems nearly a foregone conclusion. Two main arguments have emerged for doing so.
The first is “all the sacraments [and access to all offices and positions of leadership] for all the baptized.” This is the new basis for the position of the “Consultation” – a coalition of “progressive” activist groups including Integrity, the Oasis, Beyond Inclusion, etc. I think it is a complete misunderstanding of the nature of baptism, conversion, salvation, and what it means to be a member of the Body of Christ, but it has now become pervasive: “If I am unworthy of being ordained – or having my relationships blessed – why did you baptize me?”
The second is that we need to be “generous” in providing access to blessings in those (currently six) states where same-sex “marriage” is now authorized. It is being said that as many as twenty states may have authorized such “marriages” by the end of this triennium [how can anyone know this?], and the Bishops in those states need to be given the right to authorize their clergy to bless such unions.
There are over 30 resolutions addressing these matters in a variety of ways. My own sense at this point is that B033 from three years ago, pushed through at the last minute by the heavy endorsement of +Katharine Jefferts Schori, will not be formally rescinded or repealed, but rather we will “move beyond” it by giving some kind of limited authority to Bishops to make their own decisions about these things.
There may well be some sort of “conscience clause” saying that those who cannot accept such an innovation will not be required to do so. (The problem with that, of course, is that it can be over-ridden in the future, as was the case with regard to women’s ordination.)
Even a limited authorization BY THE GENERAL CONVENTION would put The Episcopal Church officially at variance with one of the key provisions of the Windsor Report and the Dar es Salaam Communique, and the Communion Partner Bishops will oppose it as vigorously as possible. (Not that our opposition will prevail.)
+KJS’s opening sermon provoked much discussion. To many she seemed to be saying that there is no such thing as personal, individual salvation. I think that is a misreading of what she was trying to say. I THINK she meant there is always a corporate dimension to the work of Christ, i.e., to be reconciled to God is to (have to) be in a new relationship to other people, as well. The “first and great” commandment has “another, like it.” “Whoever says, ‘I have come to know him,’ but does not obey his commandments is a liar…” (I wish she had said it a bit more clearly!)
Southern California is beautiful this time of year, and I am told it is about ten degrees cooler than usual – mid 70s, a nice break from Central Florida’s 90s! It is very weird to look out my hotel window and see Space Mountain about a block away (and smaller than it should be!) The prices are outrageous – a Continental Breakfast is $13, room service includes both an 18% gratuity AND a $3.00 service charge.
The atmosphere of Convention is cordial, the hours are long, and the heavy lifting is still ahead. The good news is this will all be over in another five days.
Love to all of you,
–(The Rt. Rev.) John W. Howe is Bishop of Central Florida
[blockquote]Some of our folks have been approached and questioned by members of the “Youth Presence” that is here who seem never to have heard a “traditionalist” position articulated previously.[/blockquote]
Which raises an important question: if Central Florida had left TEC to go with the ACNA who would have been there to answer the questions of the young people?
Wonderful letter – thank you for bearing witness.
I think Bishop Howe is being overly generous towards the Presiding Bishop’s theology. But then again, he does seem to possess a generosity of spirit, which is a very good thing indeed.
I’m sorry, but the PB knew exactly what she was saying about personal salvation and was quite deliberately using the word heresy to lash out at the orthodox. This was her moment to set the tone for the entire Convention, and she knew her words would be parsed. She was not careless: to the contrary she knew exactly what she was saying and knew how it would be interpreted. And it is entirely consistent with her beliefs as stated before, and in how she defines the “mission” of the Episcopal Church. She could have said that in our joy of being saved we too often we forget there is a corporate aspect of our salvation, and in so doing distort the Gospel and risk becoming self-centered. But she didn’t say that at all. Why Bishop Howe, a good and godly and wonderful orthodox bishop, feels it necessary to defend her on this is hard to explain. Except perhaps if he were to accept that she had just called heresy what he believes and knows to be true, what he has preached faithfully throughout his ministry, he would have to finally realize that he is no longer in a church at all, but is a Christian bishop in something quite different from any notion of “church.” One can’t help but feel bad for bishops like John Howe who have (in the context of the Episcopal Church) been made irrelevant. He assures us they are not hated, but indifference is sometimes more painful than hate: hate at least comes with it a recognition that one exists. There’s little sense that those at GC care to acknowledge that the orthodox exist. They are happy to be rid of us, and happy they can ignore those of us who have not left.
VGR got it right, TEC is the ‘church of the mentally ill.’
When the Church abandons truth and gives place to evil, there is no longer any coherence or foundation to hold it upright or together, spiritually, mentally or physically. This is no longer a church but a sex agenda propaganda club that approves (and fosters, with the Continuing Indaba Project and every other so-called ‘mission’)unhealthy dysfunctional behaviors, disorientation and identity confusion, even murder of unborn children. A church that proclaims sin and deception instead of freedom, light and truth is not a vehicle for holiness, peace, redemption, healing and love, but hate, addiction, compulsion, disease and death.
TEC has abandoned the Gospel, salvation, holiness of life, God’s order and design, sanctification and crucifixion of the flesh, the way of the Cross that Christ requires of all of us.
Galatians 5:24, Hebrews 7:25, I Corinthians 6:9-20 are completely inclusive and mandatory for all of us – not optional or subject to popular vote or political pressure.
God is not impressed. The Episcopal church has ceased to be a church. Her lampstand has gone out.
I am grieved and embarrassed that my home diocese, her bishop, and clergy have abandoned our brothers and sisters – especially those with whom I share orthodoxy as a chief concern – by removing themselves from the conversation at GC in pursuit of ACNA. Shame on us for having side-stepped the cross and left people like +Howe to bear it alone. Lord, have mercy. For we who have abdicated from TEC bear just as much burden for her sins (past, present, and future) as do those within her whom we oppose. Don’t think for a minute that ACNA won’t bear significant hamartiological responsibility for any coming approvals of same-sex blessings by TEC.
6, I must disagree. The NT is full of examples where the apostles moved on.
Matthew 10:14-15 14 If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. 15 I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.
Mark 6:11 11 And if any place will not welcome you or listen to you, shake the dust off your feet when you leave, as a testimony against them.”
Luke 9:5 5 If people do not welcome you, shake the dust off your feet when you leave their town, as a testimony against them.”
Acts 13:49-51 49 The word of the Lord spread through the whole region. 50 But the Jews incited the God-fearing women of high standing and the leading men of the city. They stirred up persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and expelled them from their region. 51 So they shook the dust from their feet in protest against them and went to Iconium.
There comes a point when you have to move on to sew the seed in more fertile soil.
ACNA is not to blame for the diminshed orthodox voice at GC. To think so, underestimates the hard work of the Integrity crowd over the years.
There is only so much an orthodox person can take before enough is enough. There are two Gospels. I prefer the one in the Bible.
Thank you for the interaction, Br. Michael. But in which of those biblical passages was the group from which “the apostles moved on” comprised of those with whom the apostles shared Baptism and Eucharist? Unless we view the sacraments to be of no effect (especially with respect to incorporation into Christ’s body) the contexts of the passages cited above suggest we are comparing apples and oranges. No, the abdication of TEC by ACNA members reflects the logic of capitalism and democratic liberalism to a far greater degree than it does any catholic understandings of scripture or theology (how ironic that it is this [i]same[/i] heterodox logic which informs the activities of TEC revisionists as well).
Nowhere, with the exception of folks like +Williams and +Howe, do I see Anglicans allowing themselves to be led to the cross. What greater sign of theological malformation can there be?
#9, then you can lay the same criticism at the feet of Sts. Augustine and Athanasius. Do you?
Actually, I think the existence of the ACNA does more to strengthen Bishop Howe’s and the Communion Partners than anything else. The Bishops know that if they go too far with the deputies that TEC could be cast out or ACNA recognied (more likely than the former). Also, ACNA gives more Parishes (and maybe Dioceses) a domestice Anglican Church to depart towards. The Deputies laity and clergy are activists and think of themselves as TEC’s future (I dont think they care about its size and relationship to the Anglican Communion – those are tory and Anglo-Catholic concerns). The Bishops are wanting to end their careers before the ship goes down.
ACNA hasn’t abandoned “brothers”. They have fled heresy. Very different. Why seek the living among the dead?
#9
I guess I would caution you against determining which folks are allowing themselves to be led to the Cross and which are not. Having personal experience in ACNA, I would testify to my own subjection to the Cross of Jesus Christ. Giving up pension, security, comfort, … for the sake of the Gospel.
Beside that, the passages about shaking dust off of the feet are compelling, and ought not to be dismissed. The apostolic mission would not always bear fruit, owing to the hardness of heart of those receiving the Gospel mandates. I think most outside observers of an “orthodox” variety would say that TEC has removed itself from the Christian world by its own actions – past and (seemingly) current. There may be a call for Bishop Howe and others to remain inside TEC and preach Christ crucified and risen, but that does not disqualify out of hand the mission of those called to go out into fields ripe for harvest.
Darin+
martin5, the biblical Gospel you reference is one in which an innocent defender of orthodoxy willingly allowed himself to be crucified by polytheistic pagans whose sins he freely took upon himself as his own. Further still, it is this crucified one upon whom we who would be recipients of the biblical Gospel all called to model our lives and into whom we are incorporated as the very presence of the same in the world.
Is +Howe dead, nwlayman? Surely such easy dichotomies oversimplify and thereby misrepresent the complexities of the matter.
#7. #8. Right on, Michael and Martin,
The previous two GC’s had no respect for or intrest in any orthodox voice. For what reason should orthodox voices be heard there any longer? Even the OT prophets reasoned with the people for only so long, and then God dealt with them. Have we not reached that point?
Our rector would not attend even in 2006. He had spoken clearly to the 03 GC and had seen condemnation fall on his words.
I have some idea of what the Lord has in store for TEC, but I am trying to avert my eyes. Besides, the blessings are rich in CANA.
Thank you for the interaction, Fr. Darin. Of course, those passages should not be dismissed; but neither should they simplistically be misapplied. Yet, I will limit the core of my response to asking by what logic it was that allowed you to speak of TEC in the third person whilst you were still within it (indeed, while you were still [i]it[/i] itself!) Ultimately it is the grammar of [i]that[/i] (volitional schizophrenic) logic which I am challenging in this thread (which is related to my challenge to martin5 and nwlayman).
In Bishop Howe’s confidence of TEC moving beyond B033, it seems to me a moment in which the “Windsor Bishops” or Communion Partners could seize control of the direction of a genuine, faithful, Anglicanism. Mrs. Schori has declared that recognition of ACNA, by the CofE will cause further departures. These bishops have an opportunity to correct her arrogance. A statement of their intent to join with ACNA in restoring Anglicanism in North America and a rejection of the blatant apostasy of TEC and this General Convention would bear a great witness to the truth of the Gospel and the Faith of the Church.
I believe he is correct in that there is nothing that will stop TEC from moving beyond B033 and breaking communion with Anglicans worldwide. To leave this moment without taking decisive and timely (quick) action is witnessing to nothing more than despair.
Amen #1 … and I speak as a young person brought up on liberal mush but fortunately pointed to the ‘tradition’ by some incredibly bright, humble servants of the Lord who have stayed within.
Within the Anglican/Episcopal Church that should read.
#17,
Not sure I understand your question regarding speaking of TEC in third person. I’m no longer in TEC – but ACNA, as I thought I made clear.
In any case, please understand that I respect fellow priests like Bishop Howe and others who feel called by God to stand in place (like the owner of this blog, for example!). I think the prophetic analogy a good one. Some prophets were called to stay in Jerusalem (Jeremiah) as the walls fell, continuing all the while to tell God’s Truth – others went out into Exile with God’s people (Ezekiel).
I also think the apostolic analogy of telling God’s Truth in a community until it’s clear the time is to move on is also a good one. Not sure how it’s being misapplied here. Your sacramental suppositions beg a question: is the understanding of baptism and Eucharist common? Certainly, baptism – as a foundational Sacrament – is not uniformly applied. And Eucharist is routinely offered to those who have not received the rite of initiation. The theological and sacramental incoherence in TEC doesn’t bear up your reading the passage in this way – I think.
Blessings,
Darin+
#9. Eaten By Chipmunks,
I suggest we look into the 15th chapter of Acts to see how Paul and Barnabas split over the best way to strengthen the church. “They had such a sharp disagreement that they parted company.” Sure, they got back together, later. Maybe, God will bring ACNA and TEC back together in the future. With Him all things are possible.
Phil, thanks for the interaction. But, again, I fear we are dealing with self-serving oversimplifications. Sts. Athanasius and Augustine operated under the banner and authority of a unified Christian Church which afforded them ecclesial and authoritative benefits which we who live in the time of a divided Church fundamentally lack. For example, it was ultimately [i]the whole Church[/i] which decided against Arius’ theology at Nicea; surely you don’t want to claim that level of ecclesiastic authority for ACNA, especially when the whole of the Anglican Communion has itself yet to pronounce an official “yea” or “nay” with respect to TEC’s excommunication. No, references to Sts. Athanasius and Augustine in no way map easily onto the current Anglican landscape. Their usage in defense of ACNA’s abandonment of TEC (or, if you like, the legitimacy of the former’s recognition of the reverse) will require a great deal more nuance and argument than you have heretofore provided.
Fr. Darin, thank you again for your time and efforts. Regarding my question in 17, yes, I know you are in ACNA. My question was about how it was theo-logically that you arrived at the place [i]while you were still a member of TEC[/i] wherein you could speak of TEC as if it weren’t you, as if it were other, as if it weren’t a self-reference. The grammar underwriting the ability to make [i]that[/i] move, that division of “self” into “self and other”, is largely what I find theologically problematic in profound and numerous ways, especially with respect to ACNA.
Regarding the OT prophets analogy, I find this a little too self-serving (and a reinforcing of the aforementioned problematic theo-logic), as well. Indeed, it is no mere coincidence that many of the revisionists also like to self-apply the prophetic mantle (cf. my last parenthetical comment in the first paragraph of 9). At any rate, more work needs to be done before the OT prophet analogy can just be used out of pocket, as it were (lest all we have is a shouting match of counter-assertions between, say, Integrity and ACNA as to who the true prophets really are).
Surely for a lack on my part, I am unclear on what you are after regarding the sacraments bit. My apologies.
Chipmunks, you are drawing a distinction that Paul would not have drawn. At this time Christianity or the Way was considered a sect of Judiasm. Jesus and Paul were bringing word of the kingdom to their co-religionists–the Jews. Yes, there was a Gentile component, but that grew after the Jews rejected it and the Gentile world became the main mission field. So I think the passages I quoted are very much on point.
Re: 22, I certainly hope so, CanaAnglican. But I think we still need to address the schizophrenia problem Fr. Darin and I are batting back and forth as it seems to give rise (at least in a large part) to many of our ecclesial problems in the first place. And surely we agree that, at any rate, certainly Acts 15 provides no model for or justification of ecclesial division on the scale or of the variety we’re discussing here. Thanks for the engagement.
#23. eaten_by_chipmunks
“Their usage in defense of ACNA’s abandonment of TEC…provided”
I take issue with this statement. How could ACNA abandon TEC when ACNA just became a reality. This is really an old argument and those of us who have left must respect those who have stayed and fought the good fight. The same is true of those who have stayed. Please don’t try and lay a guilt trip on those of us who have left. We are paying a heavy price for our decision. Both responses have a merit and both have sent a message to the TEC leadership. I don’t believe those who have stayed are standing on higher moral ground. Comments like the following are both judgmental and inaccurate. “Nowhere, with the exception of folks like +Williams and +Howe, do I see Anglicans allowing themselves to be led to the cross.”
#15, I got a better question; was William Stringfellow a “Prophet” or “The greatest theologian” America has produced? So says Rowan Williams, about 48 hours ago. I assume James Pike, Stringfellow’s great object of veneration, was also? Anyone who stays in this organization should know better by now. ECUSA hasn’t put Pike on the Calendar yet; why?
This is a sobering letter, it is sad to know that this is happening to the church we love.
I do have to differ with Bishop Howe’s understanding of the Presiding Bishop’s speech. Christians rightfully believe in personal salvation, it is the basis of our faith and it is NOT heresy.
It seems to me that Presiding Bishop Schori is modeling her church on the worst aspects of the church before the Reformation. If the church takes the stand that forgiveness is corporate rather than personal we would go back to the dark ages and be refused the right to pray directly to Jesus for forgiveness, we would then have to go to a priest to forgive us and for dispensation of our sins. This is how the Roman Catholic Church justified selling the dispensation of sins which Martin Luther rightfully objected to, this idea is not justified by Scripture. According to Scripture Jesus is the one who died for our sins and Christians believe that He (the Holy Trinity) is the one who can forgive us.
In regards to the PB’s address, I don’t believe she meant to deny that there is such a thing as a personal relationship with God through Jesus. But there is perhaps a different understanding of what salvation looks like on a broader scale.
Here’s an analogy: we’re on a ship. Unfortunately, the ship has been holed below the waterline and water is coming in; to make it worse, the engines are dead, and the navigation equipment is busted. If something isn’t done, everyone on the ship will drown.
The question is: is God going around the ship pulling people off and putting them into lifeboats, so that they’ll survive when the ship finally goes under? Or is God going around the ship deputizing people to patch the holes, pump the bilges, fix the engines, and get a navigational fix, so that the ship won’t sink after all?
In either case, it’s important to be clear that salvation comes from God — we cannot in the one case find the lifeboats, or in the other fix the ship, by our own unaided efforts. Both models agree to that extent. And in both cases God speaks to each person individually, so there is always that personal relationship.
But there are significant differences. In the lifeboat model, salvation consists of getting off the ship so that when it goes down — as it inevitably will — then the people in the lifeboats will live. Salvation in this model is indeed “personal,” in that I can be saved while the whole world goes (literally) to Hell.
In the “fix the ship” model, salvation consist of staying with the ship and being part of its repair under the direction of the captain. There may well be people who panic or despair and jump overboard, and they will drown; but the ship will survive in the end and get where it’s meant to go. Nobody is saved purely by themselves (although people are lost individually); only together with each other can the ship be prevented from sinking.
Since Jesus consistently talks about the Kingdom of God as something that will ultimately happen on Earth, rather than in some nebulous far-away spiritual realm, I think the argument can be made that the “fix the ship” model is more Scriptural. (Although the model is inadequate in that the world will be reborn, rather than repaired.) The idea of salvation by escaping from the doomed world smells faintly of Gnosticism.
That, I think, is what the PB is getting at.
Dcn Dale, thank you for the engagement. I use ACNA as shorthand for those who have left TEC who were former members; hopefully this should answer your first question. As to whether “this is really an old argument”, I am unclear as to both the referent of “this” and whether or not you mean to imply something intrinsically negative with respect to “old”. Further, I am not sure how “respect” entered the discussion. But leaving that aside, do you use “respect” to mean a mutual refusal to harbor or proffer a negative assessment of the other’s actions with respect to those orthodox dioceses who have left TEC and those who have remained within (my arriving at this guess per your request about my alleged “guilt trip”)?
As to whether or not you are paying a price for your decision, I don’t doubt it (I should say that I’m particularly implicated in ACNA’s abdication by my still being on the books in Ft. Worth). My challenges center of the entire legitimacy of “decision” language in the first place, the arrival and adoption of such language, and the manifold nature of the price being payed. But, certainly, as you suggest, we are all suffering.
Regarding my saying “Nowhere, with the exception […] led to the cross”, of course the statement reflects a judgment, one necessary to the assessment of the accuracy in question; but this is simply the mechanics of declarative sentences: judgment and accuracy are mutually implicating/dependent entities. And while I will admit to a certain rhetorical embellishment in that sentence (though, note the grace I intended by its qualification), I nevertheless stand by its intent. Those who have left TEC can certainly claim to be bearing a cross, but a major difference between them and those who remain is that (to put the matter crassly) the former bear a cross (or a controlled range of crosses) they have essentially [i]chosen[/i] whereas the latter, having variously eschewed the notion that communion rests on individual or diocesan “decision” or choice, must powerlessly suffer the gift of weakness that is orthodox life within TEC. Said differently, in the face of an ostensible lack of power, the former abandoned weakness to obtain power through other means, whatever crosses they might bear resulting from that conscious choice (again, behavior eerily similar in nature and scope to the actions of TEC revisionists with respect to the Anglican Communion), whilst the latter must continue to suffer the cross that is the refusal to cease suffering from weakness itself. One is the cross of Christ, the other is the calculated fallout resulting from the ecclesial application of the logic of free-market economics. Again, I’m engaged in a bit of rhetorical embellishment with this statement, but not much. And, to properly root what I’m after here, again, all this ties back to the questions I’ve been discussing with Fr. Darin in the above.
And on that somewhat inflammatory note 😉 I must be off. My wife has informed me that I’ve exhausted my allotted time for theological debate today. I’ll try to check back in tomorrow but, in the meantime, let me thank you all for the dialogue. The last word is yours. Peace.
#30 – welcome back to the RCC then?
A calm, thoughtful letter by +Howe. It’s notable that the tone isn’t one of discouragement, despair, or defeat, but of quiet confidence in the Lord and a firm determination to bear faithful witness as long as possible.
That’s commendable, although I myself have no interest in fighting rear guard actions of this type. I’d much rather attack than defend any day. And personally, I’d much rather spend the remaining years of my life helping build the exciting new “biblical, missionary, and united” Anglicanism of the future in North America than futilely trying to salvage the old wineskins of the heretical, non-missionary, and schismatic form of Anglicanism that TEC has become.
Hats off to Br. Michael, Fr. Darin, Deacon Dale, and hwlayman, for your helpful contributions to this thread. If you include Bp. Howe above, that means that all three ordained orders plus an ordinary layman and a member of a religious order have clearly and articulately defended Christian orthodoxy here. Nice teamwork, guys.
David Handy+
Ross, #3,
Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place.”
John 18:36
Jesus makes other references to “not being of this world” so I can’t help but wonder if I have missed something when you say the following”
“Since Jesus consistently talks about the Kingdom of God as something that will ultimately happen on Earth.”
Please give some references.
Ross, #3,
Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place.”
John 18:36
Jesus makes other references to “not being of this world” so I can’t help but wonder if I have missed something when you say the following”
“Since Jesus consistently talks about the Kingdom of God as something that will ultimately happen on Earth.”
Please give some references.
Sorry about the double post I hope you can remove one of them.
Betty See:
Luke 3 is a good start: “Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. Every valley shall be filled, and every mountain and hill shall be made low, and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough ways made smooth; and all flesh shall see the salvation of God.”
The so-called “Little Apocalypse” of Mark 13 (paralleled in Matt 24 and Luke 21) uses imagery of Jesus returning to the Earth in order to bring the Kingdom of God to it.
The entirety of the book of Revelation speaks graphically (and violently) of cleansing the Earth in order to make way for a “new heaven and a new earth,” centered around a new Jerusalem.
It is also consistent with the Resurrection of Jesus, who was not raised in some sort of spiritual, immaterial body, but in real (albeit transformed) flesh. If Jesus is the “first fruits,” then the Kingdom of God must be in a resurrected, transformed, but real and material Earth.
It may be too late for this entry to get noiced or read, but I must say —
At the introduction of every resolution of any importance deputies from all the conservative dioceses are at microphones.
Not every microphone gets called on. Very often, the people speaking the positive view on the resolution, or who want to move the question before any of the conservatives are called on — get called on until the alloted time runs out.
Often none of us ever get called on at all.
I hesitate to ask, Fr. Handy, but, given that your commendations for the defense of Christian orthodoxy go to folks whose “contributions to this thread” were largely in conversation with me, where in any of the above do you find that I provide an affront to Christian orthodoxy such that it would need to be defended against me? As I stated in my initial post, orthodoxy is my “chief concern”; where do I go askew of it or even begin to approach its infraction in what I’ve posted thus far?
Secondly, aside from the orthodoxy question (which puzzles me immensely), to what defense are you referring? My fundamental point of contention hasn’t yet been addressed by any of those you praise since, so far as I can tell, we have heretofore been clarifying the primary terms of the debate. Any celebrations of successful apologetic “teamwork” at this point in the conversation are certainly premature, are they not? I’d prefer ours be a productive and mutually beneficial conversation – let’s not judge it successfully completed before it starts.
Br. Michael, (re: 25) of course Paul would recognize the distinction I’ve drawn. Otherwise there would be no qualitative difference between the effects of the sacraments Baptism and Eucharist (i.e., being buried with, raised, and united to Christ and his body) and one’s being a Jew, the absence of said difference making Paul’s evangelistic efforts among the Jews fundamentally incoherent. Am I somehow misreading what you intend to argue in 25?
nwlayman, (re: 28) I fail to see how yours is a “better question”. A little help?