Just how did this darling of mainline Protestantism reach the point where she faced an all-time low in membership and a staggering budget deficit?
Inclusivity gave way to affirmation, with an emphasis on social justice to the exclusion of evangelism. In the interest of casting a wider, more inclusive net, TEC leadership began to marginalize more moderate and conservative voices, resulting in an exodus of members and a substantial decrease in diocesan giving. Ultimately, the break with centuries of Anglican tradition, coupled with a greater emphasis on trial liturgies, brought an end to common prayer. And ironically, the departure of conservative leadership led to a perception of greater theological homogeneity within the Church.
As a result, diversity of interpretation has been replaced with theological innovation. The Anglican symphony of voices has been overshadowed as Episcopal leadership seems to speak with una voce, in a bitter lament to move beyond the paternalism of B033 and forward to equality. In fact, the passage of the moratorium in response to the Windsor Report was such strong medicine to many in the Church that, in the last three years, they have begun to whine like children confined to their rooms by their global guardians. Imperialism has reared its head, with church leadership noting their significant financial support to the wider Communion. So much for Matthew’s exhortation to give in abscondito.
[blockquote]All too often these days, the Church, taking her cue from cultural contexts, seeks to provide a pastoral response by reconsidering questions settled long ago.[/blockquote]
Society is only a consultant to the church. The head of the church is Jesus Christ Son of God.
Condemning American imperialism during the Bush years whilst practicing it to the nth degree, the Episcopal leadership is so weighted in irony that it could anchor the continents.
Agreed 2
This well-written article ably covers a wide variety of perspectives on GenCon with admirable objectivity. I think it illustrates beautifully the utter theological confusion that reigns in TEC. I would naturally be much more negative in my assessment than Lydia Evans is here, but I think this summary of the fateful Anaheim assembly might be a good tool for starting a lively discussion in an adult forum or small home group in a mixed TEC congregation. And that would be precisely because Evans tries to be more descriptive than evaluative, and has made a real effort to be fair to all sides.
David Handy+
“In the interest of casting a wider, more inclusive net, TEC leadership began to marginalize more moderate and conservative voices, resulting in an exodus of members and a substantial decrease in diocesan giving.”
the only thing I disagree with here is her use of the past tense only. It continues.:(
“2009-D025 re-affirmed the Church’s 2000 recognition that its baptized members include “same-sex couples living in lifelong committed relationships characterized by fidelity, monogamy . . . and the holy love which enables those in such relationships to see in each other the image of God.†”
This is a fascinating spin on D039 (GC 2000) that the Presiding Bishop has managed to sell to even very careful observers like Ms. Evans. D039 did not give special recognition to any kind of relationship – it was merely “descriptive” of the “public narrative” of episcopalianism at that point in its journey. D039 as written merely included an acknowledgment that there were many same-sex couples who were active in the denomination. As part of a compromise that would include that fact on the ground being acknowledged, many in the HOB demanded and got a kind of morals clause in the resolution, that, after much wrangling and compromise [1], would state that the church had expectations that those same-sex relationships would be “characterized by fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect, careful, honest communication, and the holy love which enables those in such relationships to see in each other the image of God”. This was actually intended to be the “prescriptive” part, although clearly no discipline nor accountability was part of the expectation. Now the twisting and clear misrepresentation of this ancient resolution seems to be a principal duty of the Presiding Bishop even as she presents the glorious authenticity, candor and faithfulness of TEC in its “ecclesial context” to the highest levels of leadership in the Anglican Communion.
Ultimately, because the the traditional, Scriptural, authoritative proscription of the church regarding genital sexual relations (as blessed by God only within the confines of holy matrimony) had been and has continued to be breached, little by little, tiny cut by tiny cut, by successive acts of General Convention and successive non-acts of the erstwhile shepherds of the denomination, our dear Arch-Presider has to do very little to turn this lie into a “truth of our shared experience”, which is now, in official episcopalianism and not merely in the prevailing theology, equivalent to Truth Himself.
[1] At the time, many moderate and moderate-to-conservative bishops defended this part of the resolution as merely describing the current state of affairs.
Correction to #6 above –
[1] should appear in the text after the previous sentence in the paragraph –
“D039 as written merely included an acknowledgment that there were many same-sex couples who were active in the denomination. [1]”
Sorry
The fractures in TEC which I have encountered at the last three conventions are too numerous to recount. For example, the way in which transgender issues have become institutionalised was kind of startling. Gender identity was cloaked in civil rights with little regard for the pastoral implications. What about the life of the 19 year old deputy from Rhode Island who revealed years of pain and persecution following her/his decision to live as a male? There are deeper issues here. [i]This is about much more than pronouns.[/i]
Suffice it to say that I have been considerably more negative within my own household regarding the events of GC 2009, seeking in this piece to exercise a bit more subjectivity. Anaheim was the same old song.
In addition, my research in the past week on the censure of the New Zealand church following their constitutional changes has left me with more questions. I find nothing in the resolutions from ACC-8, ACC-9, or ACC-10 about official censure of Aotearoa, NZ, and Polynesia. Does anyone have a source for further information?
Oops! I meant [b]objectivity[/b] . . .
As I read #6 above and considered that someone earlier had remark that the problem was not really about sexuality but about…, I wondered if anyone at TEC – or anywhere else in this debate – has asked the question of the church (or the state), “Is it wise to institutionalize or to make sacramental the practice the sodomy?” Isn’t this, after all, what much of the debate hinges on? I tried to ask this question of the state, since Maine has passed legislation making ssm legal, but the papers would not print the word “sodomy,” which they said was too coarse to be printed in a “family-oriented” newspaper. So the practice is quite literally never spoken of, or to be precise, never permitted to be spoken of. But isn’t this the elephant in the room, if I may coin a phrase? How can either church or state find this practice “sacramental,” (if marriage is a sacrament) or worthy of legal institutionalization? Has TEC ever discussed this matter openly? Larry
#10. Larry Morse,
The same is true of abortion. How can it be termed a “blessing” by Katherine Ragsdale if one has actually seen it performed on film or video.