I could go along with this call for infinite patience if the other side weren’t proceeding to persecute the orthodox and move their agenda along. Why is it that they don’t have to be patient, but we have to?
Fr. Clavier must realize that the ECUSA revisionists are provoking revisionist reaction.
So, if the the revisionists ‘back off’ and meet the Dar Es Salaam requirements by 30 Sep 07, then the revisionists will have no immediate reason to react.
But, the revisionists are following an agenda that they seem to care more for than the unity of the Anglican Communion.
Therefore, it’s very likely that the ECUSA revisionists will provoke a situation that clearly signals to many in the Communion that ECUSA has decided to ‘set it’s own couse,’ a course that is seriously at odds with many of the Communion’s churches and which can result in schism.
I think he is proposing a way for the bishops to hold out a future of full LGBT inclusion while passing the 9/30 test:
1) make a great show of prayer and fasting
2) assent with wording that they will not perform outside of their current function as bishops, knowing that they have this “out” as he explains regarding a change in legislation by the General Convention and the House of Deputies,
3) Proclaim a continued commitment to LGBT inclusion,
4) Proclaim with tears their desire to remain in the Anglican Communion
[blockquote] The bishops, together, preferably by consensus, [b]after prayer and fasting[/b], may speak on those matters which pertain to the spiritual and practical functions of bishops….Bishops also have the final say in the matter of who is or is not ordained and collectively a collective “say” with the standing committees on the matter of who is or is not ordained or consecrated to the episcopate. For bishops to determine that they will not authorize that which has not been authorized is, one presumes, well within their scope of collective authority! For bishops to authorize that which is not authorized, even by committing themselves to turn a blind eye would be a “legislative” action and beyond the competence of the House of Bishops [b]unless performed during General Convention and with the consent of the House of Deputies[/b]….I hope our bishops won’t take umbrage about the deadline imposed by the primates, won’t let pride assert itself, resist a “Bushish” response, don’t wrap themselves in a Cause which assumes the mantle of total Gospel [b]at the expense of that which is affirmed in our baptisms[/b]. I hope they will be humble in asserting that which they believe they are called to say and that say that clearly and will [b]be equally clear in striving to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace[/b].[/blockquote]
We are in for a big show and a lot of carefully crafted phrasing!!!
Schism is heresy in that schism is caused by heresy. But it is never heresy for the orthodox to acknowledge the separation cause by the heterodox, it is what Christ calls us to do! The schism is already here and the cause is not the orthodox, only those deluding themselves see it otherwise.
I believe that the Windsor Bishop are holding off until after Sept 30. I would hope that the Bishops are given the option to sign something that says
1. They will not authorize (either by official sanction or by turning a blind eye) rites of same sex blessings and
2. They will not vote to confirm the election of a bishop who is in a sexually active homosexual relationship
If they choose not to sign (or go back on their given word), their invitations to Lambeth will withdrawn.
I don’t know if this will happen, but I believe it is the best possible outcome.
The reason why we must not respond in kind to injustice is that we are Christians. We must be patient, we must be kind, we must not be provoked because that is our high calling. It is that simple and that complicated, that stark and that deep. God help us. We won’t know the outcome until after it all works its way through and as usual, we will only see the hand of God in retrospect.
wvparson,
Your presumption is that the revisionist activists leading ECUSA are just nice people doing something new.
Well they are not nice people, they are not behaving in a Christian manner and they are defying Scripture and the Church Catholic.
They are secular activists who expect to be treated as members of the Body of Christ, of which they strongly seem not.
“Being nice’ will not resolve this problem presented to the Anglican Communion by the secular activists/revisionists leading ECUSA.
It has gone too far. They have not only ‘stretched the envelop,’ they have ‘pierced the envelop.’
Don’t be decieved, the leadership of ECUSA is a secular political activist group. I truly believe that they are no longer Christians as Christians are identified in the Anglican Communion and in the Church Catholic.
Even if you are totally correct in your estimation, Anglican First, we are not absolved from “being nice”. Didn’t Jesus say that even the gentiles love their friends. He demanded more of us. Being nice doesn’t mean being daft or complicit. It does mean being as sure as we can be that our actions are loving, not sentimental, but loving.
wvparson,
So what would be the loving, unsentimental, thing to do here? Wouldn’t it be to point out the heresy and gently explain the way back?
I can be nice to a lot of people who want to do me harm, but I do not have to accept that they are fellow believers when their actions do not match their claims of faith.
As an analogy: do you counsel spouses to stay at all costs when the other spouse continues to threaten and harm the first spouse? We can tell the spouse being harmed to be nice, but what does true love require of us in such a situation?
TEC has become that kind of dysfunctional family unit. We think we need to be nice in the face of continued abuse and hope talk will change the abuser. My experience is that organizations and individuals that are abusive need sharp limits that have real, immediate, and sometimes painful, consequences.
In marriage counseling, as a rule, I tell spouses to call the cops and get out of there when things get physical; and do not apologize or back down when the police show up to calm things down. The presence of legal authority changes the equation and the situation. Unfortunately, the orthodox in TEC have been calling the cops, but the only ones who respond are from the next county, on the other side of the lake.
#9: Well here we have one crux: :”loving, not sentimental, but loving.” Tell me, what does this mean? Obviously, I have grown irritated and weary of hearing God is Love because, when one asks, no one can say what this means. The God’s love we can easily see is the natural world, and tough love that is! Exactly how does one love one’s enemies? Do one sit still while they cut you throat – which is what TEC is up to? Is smiling, patient passivity what Christ is about? The moneychangers certainly didn’t think so. In short, are you telling me that we are, as Christians, forbidden to protect ourselves against attack? Larry
You message is familiar and very nice. But it doesn’t seem to mean anything because it doesn’t give us any real guidance about how to negotiate a rapacious world.
What does it mean to embrace the way of Christ in all our dealings? Of course it means setting oneself up for personal failure and through failure and around it learning to immitate Christ by being grace-filled. It means a positive and hopefully winsome witness to the Gospel. It means a positive application of those things which Scripture teaches, the Prayer Book bears witness to and our formularies proclaim. It means taking every opportunity to tell the Good News. It means loving those who despitefully use us, turning the other cheek, forgiving til seventy times seven. It means being as wise as serpents and harmless as doves. It does not mean political strategy, using the weapons of the Enemy -our father below – or cloaking anger, hatred and malice under the mantle of right belief. It means being willing, without moaning, to walk to Calvary and through Calvary in the sure hope of a Resurrection. That’s how we negotiate a “rapacious world”. The world hasn’t changed, but the Cross assures us that in God’s time, he will accomplish his purpose for the church and the world.
In one way you are correct, Rev 2:1-7 clearly points out that we should not be so doctrinally correct that we forget to love God and our neighbor.
But may I return to my analogy above? Are you then saying that in marriage counseling the abused should continue in the experience of failure and abuse in order to maintain a winsome witness that forgives seventy times seven? Or is it wise to put some distance between the two parties until the abusive behavior ends?
Another analogy/question: Why then did the early church flee Jerusalem to Phoenicia, Cyprus, Antioch and other places under the persecution recorded in Acts 11 that followed Stephen’s martyrdom? Did they sin by not staying to provide a winsome witness of forgiving their persecutors seventy times seven?
These are not malicious questions, neither are they filled with hatred. I genuinely do not see what witness is provided by staying in the same house with those who abuse you once the pattern is established. Neither do I see how this promotes the testimony of Jesus Christ to my family, my friends, colleagues or even to the wider world.
Even unconditional love must have boundaries, else it is no love at all.
Your analogy depends on the correctness of your metaphor. Christians didn’t flee from the church in biblical times; they were the church. After the martyrdom of St. Stephen they were forced from geographical locations but even there contact with the Jewish Church continued for a very long time indeed. Complete separation was long in coming, and again, was not a leaving the church, but the church developing and growing and bursting forth.
Of course there must be boundaries, but if one retreats into a “safe place” there’s no one to witness to but oneself and, at least so far, evangelism becomes the art of attracting the like-minded. I believe the Gospel can affect even those whose behavior to us is dreadful. I believe that we have a positive duty to reach out to people we believe to be in error. The point of Christian discipline is always restoration if it may be so. This is not the first time in the history of the church that the lowly have had to live with and resist in love the powerful.
wvparson,
Thanks for the interaction on this. I think you are right that the Christians in Jerusalem were not fleeing the church because they were the church. They were fleeing those who were not the church who were persecuting them and the church grew as a result.
This is what I believe those in CANA, AMiA and other parts of the Anglican alphabet are saying about their decisions to leave TEC. The safe place they desire is only to get out from under the threats (canonical, legal, etc.) to continue their witness to the Gospel. I haven’t heard any of them announce they are looking to set up a closed shop, though it might be possible that some are doing that very thing.
I do not think that all of those actions have been perfectly accomplished, but I understand the urge to flee to maintain one’s integrity and witness. Neither do I think it has been helpful to have so many versions of the same thing occur as it gives the [i]impression[/i] of disorganization, competition, and self-centeredness on the parts of those setting the groups up. Not saying that is what is going on, just that is the impression left behind.
Thanks again for the interaction. I may not get back to this thread for a day or two while we let a hurricane finish going through the neighborhood.
I could go along with this call for infinite patience if the other side weren’t proceeding to persecute the orthodox and move their agenda along. Why is it that they don’t have to be patient, but we have to?
They sound like Neville Chamberlain.
Fr. Clavier must realize that the ECUSA revisionists are provoking revisionist reaction.
So, if the the revisionists ‘back off’ and meet the Dar Es Salaam requirements by 30 Sep 07, then the revisionists will have no immediate reason to react.
But, the revisionists are following an agenda that they seem to care more for than the unity of the Anglican Communion.
Therefore, it’s very likely that the ECUSA revisionists will provoke a situation that clearly signals to many in the Communion that ECUSA has decided to ‘set it’s own couse,’ a course that is seriously at odds with many of the Communion’s churches and which can result in schism.
Who’s at fault here?
ECUSA’s revisionists, that’s who.
I think he is proposing a way for the bishops to hold out a future of full LGBT inclusion while passing the 9/30 test:
1) make a great show of prayer and fasting
2) assent with wording that they will not perform outside of their current function as bishops, knowing that they have this “out” as he explains regarding a change in legislation by the General Convention and the House of Deputies,
3) Proclaim a continued commitment to LGBT inclusion,
4) Proclaim with tears their desire to remain in the Anglican Communion
[blockquote] The bishops, together, preferably by consensus, [b]after prayer and fasting[/b], may speak on those matters which pertain to the spiritual and practical functions of bishops….Bishops also have the final say in the matter of who is or is not ordained and collectively a collective “say” with the standing committees on the matter of who is or is not ordained or consecrated to the episcopate. For bishops to determine that they will not authorize that which has not been authorized is, one presumes, well within their scope of collective authority! For bishops to authorize that which is not authorized, even by committing themselves to turn a blind eye would be a “legislative” action and beyond the competence of the House of Bishops [b]unless performed during General Convention and with the consent of the House of Deputies[/b]….I hope our bishops won’t take umbrage about the deadline imposed by the primates, won’t let pride assert itself, resist a “Bushish” response, don’t wrap themselves in a Cause which assumes the mantle of total Gospel [b]at the expense of that which is affirmed in our baptisms[/b]. I hope they will be humble in asserting that which they believe they are called to say and that say that clearly and will [b]be equally clear in striving to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace[/b].[/blockquote]
We are in for a big show and a lot of carefully crafted phrasing!!!
Schism is heresy in that schism is caused by heresy. But it is never heresy for the orthodox to acknowledge the separation cause by the heterodox, it is what Christ calls us to do! The schism is already here and the cause is not the orthodox, only those deluding themselves see it otherwise.
I believe that the Windsor Bishop are holding off until after Sept 30. I would hope that the Bishops are given the option to sign something that says
1. They will not authorize (either by official sanction or by turning a blind eye) rites of same sex blessings and
2. They will not vote to confirm the election of a bishop who is in a sexually active homosexual relationship
If they choose not to sign (or go back on their given word), their invitations to Lambeth will withdrawn.
I don’t know if this will happen, but I believe it is the best possible outcome.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
The reason why we must not respond in kind to injustice is that we are Christians. We must be patient, we must be kind, we must not be provoked because that is our high calling. It is that simple and that complicated, that stark and that deep. God help us. We won’t know the outcome until after it all works its way through and as usual, we will only see the hand of God in retrospect.
wvparson,
Your presumption is that the revisionist activists leading ECUSA are just nice people doing something new.
Well they are not nice people, they are not behaving in a Christian manner and they are defying Scripture and the Church Catholic.
They are secular activists who expect to be treated as members of the Body of Christ, of which they strongly seem not.
“Being nice’ will not resolve this problem presented to the Anglican Communion by the secular activists/revisionists leading ECUSA.
It has gone too far. They have not only ‘stretched the envelop,’ they have ‘pierced the envelop.’
Don’t be decieved, the leadership of ECUSA is a secular political activist group. I truly believe that they are no longer Christians as Christians are identified in the Anglican Communion and in the Church Catholic.
Even if you are totally correct in your estimation, Anglican First, we are not absolved from “being nice”. Didn’t Jesus say that even the gentiles love their friends. He demanded more of us. Being nice doesn’t mean being daft or complicit. It does mean being as sure as we can be that our actions are loving, not sentimental, but loving.
9, Jesus also said, in a nutshell, don’t be stuped.
wvparson,
So what would be the loving, unsentimental, thing to do here? Wouldn’t it be to point out the heresy and gently explain the way back?
I can be nice to a lot of people who want to do me harm, but I do not have to accept that they are fellow believers when their actions do not match their claims of faith.
As an analogy: do you counsel spouses to stay at all costs when the other spouse continues to threaten and harm the first spouse? We can tell the spouse being harmed to be nice, but what does true love require of us in such a situation?
TEC has become that kind of dysfunctional family unit. We think we need to be nice in the face of continued abuse and hope talk will change the abuser. My experience is that organizations and individuals that are abusive need sharp limits that have real, immediate, and sometimes painful, consequences.
In marriage counseling, as a rule, I tell spouses to call the cops and get out of there when things get physical; and do not apologize or back down when the police show up to calm things down. The presence of legal authority changes the equation and the situation. Unfortunately, the orthodox in TEC have been calling the cops, but the only ones who respond are from the next county, on the other side of the lake.
#9: Well here we have one crux: :”loving, not sentimental, but loving.” Tell me, what does this mean? Obviously, I have grown irritated and weary of hearing God is Love because, when one asks, no one can say what this means. The God’s love we can easily see is the natural world, and tough love that is! Exactly how does one love one’s enemies? Do one sit still while they cut you throat – which is what TEC is up to? Is smiling, patient passivity what Christ is about? The moneychangers certainly didn’t think so. In short, are you telling me that we are, as Christians, forbidden to protect ourselves against attack? Larry
You message is familiar and very nice. But it doesn’t seem to mean anything because it doesn’t give us any real guidance about how to negotiate a rapacious world.
Good stuff, Tony. Thanks.
What does it mean to embrace the way of Christ in all our dealings? Of course it means setting oneself up for personal failure and through failure and around it learning to immitate Christ by being grace-filled. It means a positive and hopefully winsome witness to the Gospel. It means a positive application of those things which Scripture teaches, the Prayer Book bears witness to and our formularies proclaim. It means taking every opportunity to tell the Good News. It means loving those who despitefully use us, turning the other cheek, forgiving til seventy times seven. It means being as wise as serpents and harmless as doves. It does not mean political strategy, using the weapons of the Enemy -our father below – or cloaking anger, hatred and malice under the mantle of right belief. It means being willing, without moaning, to walk to Calvary and through Calvary in the sure hope of a Resurrection. That’s how we negotiate a “rapacious world”. The world hasn’t changed, but the Cross assures us that in God’s time, he will accomplish his purpose for the church and the world.
wvparson,
In one way you are correct, Rev 2:1-7 clearly points out that we should not be so doctrinally correct that we forget to love God and our neighbor.
But may I return to my analogy above? Are you then saying that in marriage counseling the abused should continue in the experience of failure and abuse in order to maintain a winsome witness that forgives seventy times seven? Or is it wise to put some distance between the two parties until the abusive behavior ends?
Another analogy/question: Why then did the early church flee Jerusalem to Phoenicia, Cyprus, Antioch and other places under the persecution recorded in Acts 11 that followed Stephen’s martyrdom? Did they sin by not staying to provide a winsome witness of forgiving their persecutors seventy times seven?
These are not malicious questions, neither are they filled with hatred. I genuinely do not see what witness is provided by staying in the same house with those who abuse you once the pattern is established. Neither do I see how this promotes the testimony of Jesus Christ to my family, my friends, colleagues or even to the wider world.
Even unconditional love must have boundaries, else it is no love at all.
Your analogy depends on the correctness of your metaphor. Christians didn’t flee from the church in biblical times; they were the church. After the martyrdom of St. Stephen they were forced from geographical locations but even there contact with the Jewish Church continued for a very long time indeed. Complete separation was long in coming, and again, was not a leaving the church, but the church developing and growing and bursting forth.
Of course there must be boundaries, but if one retreats into a “safe place” there’s no one to witness to but oneself and, at least so far, evangelism becomes the art of attracting the like-minded. I believe the Gospel can affect even those whose behavior to us is dreadful. I believe that we have a positive duty to reach out to people we believe to be in error. The point of Christian discipline is always restoration if it may be so. This is not the first time in the history of the church that the lowly have had to live with and resist in love the powerful.
wvparson,
Thanks for the interaction on this. I think you are right that the Christians in Jerusalem were not fleeing the church because they were the church. They were fleeing those who were not the church who were persecuting them and the church grew as a result.
This is what I believe those in CANA, AMiA and other parts of the Anglican alphabet are saying about their decisions to leave TEC. The safe place they desire is only to get out from under the threats (canonical, legal, etc.) to continue their witness to the Gospel. I haven’t heard any of them announce they are looking to set up a closed shop, though it might be possible that some are doing that very thing.
I do not think that all of those actions have been perfectly accomplished, but I understand the urge to flee to maintain one’s integrity and witness. Neither do I think it has been helpful to have so many versions of the same thing occur as it gives the [i]impression[/i] of disorganization, competition, and self-centeredness on the parts of those setting the groups up. Not saying that is what is going on, just that is the impression left behind.
Thanks again for the interaction. I may not get back to this thread for a day or two while we let a hurricane finish going through the neighborhood.